Ideas for FAIR taxation

[nic34]

Land value tax

A land value tax (or site valuation tax) is a levy on the unimproved value of land only. It is an ad valorem tax on land that disregards the value of buildings, personal property and other improvements. A land value tax (LVT) is different from other property taxes, which are taxes on the whole value of real estate: the combination of land, buildings, and improvements to the site.

Although the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been established knowledge since Adam Smith,[1] it was perhaps most famously promoted by Henry George. In his best selling work Progress and Poverty (1879), George argued that when the site or location value of land was improved by public works, its economic rent was the most logical source of public revenue.[2] A land value tax is also a progressive tax, in that it would be paid primarily by the wealthy, and would reduce economic inequality.[3] The philosophy that land rents extracted from nature should be captured by society and used to replace taxes is often now known as Georgism.

Land value taxation is currently implemented throughout Denmark,[4] Estonia, Russia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. The tax has been applied in subregions of Australia (New South Wales), Mexico (Mexicali), and the United States (Pennsylvania).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax


Georgism

Georgism is an economic philosophy and ideology which holds that people own what they create, but that income (economic rent) from things found in nature, most importantly from land, belongs equally to all.[1] The philosophical basis of Georgism dates back to early proponents such as John Locke[2] and Baruch Spinoza,[3] but the concept was widely popularized by the economist and social reformer Henry George (1839–1897).[4]

Georgists argue that a tax on land value is economically efficient, fair, and equitable; and that it can generate sufficient revenue so that other taxes (e.g. taxes on profits, sales or income), which are less fair and efficient, can be reduced or eliminated. Early followers of George's philosophy called themselves Single Taxers, associated with the idea of a single tax on the value of land. The term georgism was coined later, and some prefer the term geoism instead.[5]

A tax on land value has been described by many as a progressive tax, since it would be paid primarily by the wealthy, and would reduce economic inequality.[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

So who's for eliminating sales and income taxes and actually taxing the wealthy?

[Captain Obvious]

Consumption taxes

[Captain Obvious]

That land value tax looks like bullshit, btw.

Anyone want to explain how it works in practice?

[Matty]

Will the LVT replace all other property taxes are just be a new additional tax?

[Matty]

Land value tax

A land value tax (or site valuation tax) is a levy on the unimproved value of land only. It is an ad valorem tax on land that disregards the value of buildings, personal property and other improvements. A land value tax (LVT) is different from other property taxes, which are taxes on the whole value of real estate: the combination of land, buildings, and improvements to the site.

Although the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been established knowledge since Adam Smith,[1] it was perhaps most famously promoted by Henry George. In his best selling work Progress and Poverty (1879), George argued that when the site or location value of land was improved by public works, its economic rent was the most logical source of public revenue.[2] A land value tax is also a progressive tax, in that it would be paid primarily by the wealthy, and would reduce economic inequality.[3] The philosophy that land rents extracted from nature should be captured by society and used to replace taxes is often now known as Georgism.

Land value taxation is currently implemented throughout Denmark,[4] Estonia, Russia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. The tax has been applied in subregions of Australia (New South Wales), Mexico (Mexicali), and the United States (Pennsylvania).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax


Georgism

Georgism is an economic philosophy and ideology which holds that people own what they create, but that income (economic rent) from things found in nature, most importantly from land, belongs equally to all.[1] The philosophical basis of Georgism dates back to early proponents such as John Locke[2] and Baruch Spinoza,[3] but the concept was widely popularized by the economist and social reformer Henry George (1839–1897).[4]

Georgists argue that a tax on land value is economically efficient, fair, and equitable; and that it can generate sufficient revenue so that other taxes (e.g. taxes on profits, sales or income), which are less fair and efficient, can be reduced or eliminated. Early followers of George's philosophy called themselves Single Taxers, associated with the idea of a single tax on the value of land. The term georgism was coined later, and some prefer the term geoism instead.[5]

A tax on land value has been described by many as a progressive tax, since it would be paid primarily by the wealthy, and would reduce economic inequality.[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

So who's for eliminating sales and income taxes and actually taxing the wealthy?
I am against taxing Only the wealthy. Number one, every American should have some skin in the game, number two taxing only the wealthy is a good way to get rid of the wealthy so who then would be next on your list? Riiiight,, the middle class.

[Chris]

Wouldn't a land tax as described be a disincentive to improving the land? And thus hamper increased wealth and prosperity.

[nic34]

Wouldn't a land tax as described be a disincetive to improving the land? And thus hamper increased wealth and prosperity.


If it would end the free-for-all raping of planet earth, and create more innovaton, then that would be a good thing.

It would also most likely reduce economic inequality as was mentioned.

[nic34]

I am against taxing Only the wealthy. Number one, every American should have some skin in the game, number two taxing only the wealthy is a good way to get rid of the wealthy so who then would be next on your list? Riiiight,, the middle class.

Feel free to pay some extra tax if it makes you feel better about those rich people.

Also feel free to READ what was posted for a more complete understanding of the concepts.....

[Matty]

Feel free to pay some extra tax if it makes you feel better about those rich people.

Also feel free to READ what was posted for a more complete understanding of the concepts.....
I did read it. Where did I go wrong? Point it.

[Chris]

If it would end the free-for-all raping of planet earth, and create more innovaton, then that would be a good thing.

It would also most likely reduce economic inequality as was mentioned.



Can you explain how it would do that? How is improving the land raping the land? The rich would think less of the tax than the poor so it would increase rather than decrease inequality.

[Captain Obvious]

That land value tax looks like bullshit, btw.

Anyone want to explain how it works in practice?

No takers, eh?

This forum is full of smart as fuck fuckers, except when someone asks specific questions.

[Matty]

No takers, eh?

This forum is full of smart as fuck fuckers, except when someone asks specific questions.


He did tell you. He said it's a good way to tax the rich! More wealth redistribution.

[Captain Obvious]

He did tell you. He said it's a good way to tax the rich! More wealth redistribution.

Re-read the question, this isn't what I asked.

[nathanbforrest45]

You are all just a bunch of bed shitters

[nathanbforrest45]

I am against taxing Only the wealthy. Number one, every American should have some skin in the game, number two taxing only the wealthy is a good way to get rid of the wealthy so who then would be next on your list? Riiiight,, the middle class.

We could then go back to only allowing those who pay taxes to vote. If you are not paying for the government why should you have a say in what the government is spending? If I don't have to pay for something I don't really care how much it cost.

[nathanbforrest45]

UH, Captain Obvious, since it appears you attacked all of us in your "full of fuckers" or some such could you explain in smaller words so those of us who don't meet your exacting standard understand just the the fuck you are babbling about?

[The Sage of Main Street]

We should prevent speculators from taking the land out of development by holding their acquired property for years, hoping to get in on a boom market and paying low taxes until then. Use it or lose it.

[zelmo1234]

If it would end the free-for-all raping of planet earth, and create more innovaton, then that would be a good thing.

It would also most likely reduce economic inequality as was mentioned.

Actually it is going to hit the poor and lower middle class fairly hard, here is why!

/because it is only on the land not the improvements. (buildings excreta) It hits those that own large tracks of land the hardest.

Who are the largest land owners. Farmers so the first thing we are going to see increase dramatically is the cost of food,

Next think of low income housing? It sits on large tracks of land, much of which is devoted to parking, water treatment, play and community areas. So the next thing they are going to see increase is their Rent!

What are the 2 things that people that don't have a lot of money can't live without? Food and shelter?

It only works when you think that business operates in a bubble! And that the land owner is gong to eat the cost of the new taxation, They are not! Never have, never will!

It sounds great to a lot of people, because it sounds like you are sticking it to the rich guy, but they are not going to pay one dime of it! the poor are.

We take in almost 3 trillion a year. If we created a tax code that caused economic growth we would see that number grow.,

But that means reforming the tax code, and the progressives are not going to do that!

[nic34]

Re-read the question, this isn't what I asked.

Read the sources provided.

The philosophy that land rents extracted from nature should be captured by society and used to replace taxes

This has not only been done, but is in use in many places right now. You and zel should be able to answer your own questions by doing a little more digging.... the links are there.

[Chris]

Read the sources provided.

The philosophy that land rents extracted from nature should be captured by society and used to replace taxes

This has not only been done, but is in use in many places right now. You and zel should be able to answer your own questions by doing a little more digging.... the links are there.


Right, Geoergists and others maintain that, but is the rent really extracted from the land or the improvements, or are they even the fruits of one's labor as Locke argued?

[patrickt]

Will the LVT replace all other property taxes are just be a new additional tax?

Bingo. Nic's goal is to have all workers slaves to the state.

[nic34]

Right, Geoergists and others maintain that, but is the rent really extracted from the land or the improvements, or are they even the fruits of one's labor as Locke argued?

This is supposed to get away from taxing labor, iow, income taxes.

Workers would then have freedom to share ownership of their company (co-op) that would be when they paid a proportion of taxes.

[Chris]

This is supposed to get away from taxing labor, iow, income taxes.

Workers would then have freedom to share ownership of their company (co-op) that would be when they paid a proportion of taxes.


My point was about where rents are taken.


Even if it was a good thing like the Fair Tax it won't happen because government found a gold mine in income taxes not only in revenue but also in control.

[nic34]

It already has been implemented it in some localities in Pennsylvania.

No reason we can't start at the local level....

[zelmo1234]

This is supposed to get away from taxing labor, iow, income taxes.

Workers would then have freedom to share ownership of their company (co-op) that would be when they paid a proportion of taxes.

You are still under the impression that I actually pay the taxes on my business properties out of my own pocket!

You plan fails when it meets reality. They now tax rents as capital gains, and not profits, it caused rent to go up by 50 dollars a month. The city I am in increased the price of water and sewer 5 fold. Rent went up a another 40 dollars a month?

Do you think it is easy in this day and age for people to pay another 90 dollars a month? NO! it is not, but there is a formula that has to be followed fro a business to be profitable.

This is what liberals do not understand. I don't think they ever will, they believe that everything stays the same, and just the owners make less? And they are wrong.

[zelmo1234]

It already has been implemented it in some localities in Pennsylvania.

No reason we can't start at the local level....

Yes there is, where are the poor going to come up with the money?

[Mister D]

It already has been implemented it in some localities in Pennsylvania.

No reason we can't start at the local level....

PA income tax withholding is a flat rate state wide.

[nic34]

http://www.earthrights.net/docs/success.html

[Kalkin]

My plan: Flat national sales tax of 15%; 10% to the state, 5% to the feds. Feds would be restricted to only spending 4% until the debt is paid off. Most federal agencies would be closed and those responsibilities reverted back to the states (education, welfare, EPA, etc.). Food would be tax free. What's that? How would the federal gov pay for shit? It would live within it's means. A booming economy would be the only way to increase it's revenue. Let them work toward that end instead of continually looking for new and higher taxes.

[Mainecoons]

Hardly a new idea. Read up on Henry George and the single tax.

The problem in America isn't what form the tax takes, the problem is that there is simply too much taxation in the aggregate now. History tells us that countries that tax at the level the U.S. and the states/localities are taxing is not sustainable.

Those of us who didn't sleep through economics are well aware of Henry George, Nic. Next time stay awake.

[Mister D]

http://www.earthrights.net/docs/success.html

That's property tax. Mine are outrageous.

[zelmo1234]

http://www.earthrights.net/docs/success.html

Yes back in the Reagan years this was called enterprise zones! It is not a liberal idea.

It lowers taxes, which you and I know that libs have never met a tax they did not like.

And when they lower the taxes in an area? business moves in and the economy expands.

Why would cities in need of money do this? Because they finally understand that the economic growth more than covers the cost of the tax cuts.

So the question is DEMOCRATS??? why not make the entire USA an enterprise zone?

[zelmo1234]

That's property tax. Mine are outrageous.

The policy is enterprise zones and it lowers taxes not increases them as in the OP

And of course because it puts more money back in the hands of the people? IT WORKS EVERYTIME!!

[Peter1469]

Here is a long article (http://www.devvy.com/notax.html) that advocates ending any direct taxation of the American people.


Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.


"Strictly speaking, it probably is not necessary for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk: too much water and the people catch on."

[Chris]

It already has been implemented it in some localities in Pennsylvania.

No reason we can't start at the local level....


And those regions no longer pay income tax, nic?