NationStates Jolt Archive

The Dermocratic Freedom Caucus seems to be the closest practical niche for me in US politics. I sent some family and friends some info on them, and my mother came back with an objection to their tax plan.

1) Property rights based on justice. There are two forms of property:

a) human-made products, such as cars, houses, and machinery; and

b) land, which refers to spatial locations, along with the natural resources within those locations. Each individual has the right to keep the rewards from his or her labor. However, since no person made the land, property in land needs to be treated somewhat differently from other types of property, to prevent over- concentrated ownership of land and natural resources.

Taxes on income, sales, or buildings all take away the rewards of labor, so they are the most harmful kinds of taxes. The least harmful tax is a tax on land location value or on extraction of natural resources, because those are not products of labor, but are fixed resources.
http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/principles-of-the-dfc/

Mom's objections were:
1) Only property taxes, especially only land, isn't a large enough tax base.

2) The plan doesn't consider large cities where very wealthy people live in tiny apartments.

3) It would unfairly tax farmers who "need all the incentive they can get to keep on trying."

Any counter-arguments? Any better suggestions?

I'm tempted to suggest a capital gains tax as being fairer than a simple income tax, although I'm rather unsure about it, as a way to make up the extra monies. Maybe a sales tax or corporate tax...

As for the wealthy living is small urban apartments, I don't really see that as a real objection.

And both the urban and agricultural questions can be addressed by land valuations....

i dont see how taxes based on land or natural resources are inherently fair at all.

Well, there's property tax, which could be charged on land and there's sales and luxury taxes which can be charged on grossly extravagant goods and services. For example, I think that property taxes on houses ought to factor in number of houses. I think the taxes on a second, third, fourth...etc. home ought to be substantially more than the taxes on the first.

I think this is similar to the Poll tax introduced in the UK in the 1980's. Correct me if I am wrong, but...

I don't think it worked.

Still, could of I spose.

For example, I think that property taxes on houses ought to factor in number of houses. I think the taxes on a second, third, fourth...etc. home ought to be substantially more than the taxes on the first.

So if i have five $100k homes i should be taxed more then someone who has one $2 million dollar home?

So if i have five $100k homes i should be taxed more then someone who has one $2 million dollar home?

Higher rate, not necessarily a higher amount. The taxes on a $2 million home will obviously be considerably more than a $100,000 home, but the second-thru fifth homes should be taxed at a considerably higher rate than the first home.

Besides, who the hell would have 5 $100,000 homes instead of one $500,000 home?

Higher rate, not necessarily a higher amount. The taxes on a $2 million home will obviously be considerably more than a $100,000 home, but the second-thru fifth homes should be taxed at a considerably higher rate than the first home.

Besides, who the hell would have 5 $100,000 homes instead of one $500,000 home?

meaning the total paid will be more.


Also for a lot of people a 2nd 3rd or 4th home isn't a luxury. I know quite a few people who buy homes and then fix them up and sell them at a profit.

Also what happens to the guy who owns 5 homes and rents out 4 of them?

you pretty much destroy home rental and HUD home with a progressive housing tax.

and make and exemption for rental property and I will sign a one dollar a month lease with someone.

meaning the total paid will be more.


Also for a lot of people a 2nd 3rd or 4th home isn't a luxury. I know quite a few people who buy homes and then fix them up and sell them at a profit.

Also what happens to the guy who owns 5 homes and rents out 4 of them?

you pretty much destroy home rental and HUD home with a progressive housing tax.

and make and exemption for rental property and I will sign a one dollar a month lease with someone.

You don't think these things can be taken into account? Hmm?

It sounds like a lousy plan, as it would disproportionately affect people like my parents, who chose to live in a small house on a quite large chunk of land out in the middle of nowhere. The overwhelming majority of my friends come from far wealthier families who chose to live in more "normal" places like large houses in the suburbs or swanky apartments in NYC; I cannot see how a tax system which has those people paying less than my parents makes any sense at all.

You don't think these things can be taken into account? Hmm?

LG, come on now thats a horridly weak responce. We expect better.

LG, come on now thats a horridly weak responce. We expect better.

If I were in control of the IRS I could train Internal Revenue Tax Agents in a more fun and entertaining technique for enforcing the tax code. :)

The Dermocratic Freedom Caucus seems to be the closest practical niche for me in US politics. I sent some family and friends some info on them, and my mother came back with an objection to their tax plan.


http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/principles-of-the-dfc/

Mom's objections were:
1) Only property taxes, especially only land, isn't a large enough tax base.

2) The plan doesn't consider large cities where very wealthy people live in tiny apartments.

3) It would unfairly tax farmers who "need all the incentive they can get to keep on trying."

Any counter-arguments? Any better suggestions?

I'm tempted to suggest a capital gains tax as being fairer than a simple income tax, although I'm rather unsure about it, as a way to make up the extra monies. Maybe a sales tax or corporate tax...

As for the wealthy living is small urban apartments, I don't really see that as a real objection.

And both the urban and agricultural questions can be addressed by land valuations....



Well here is my Take on taxes.
First everyone set down and determine by democratic vote a certain ratio on taxes. then all tax cuts or tax increases shall follow this ratio. I am tired of every election each party targeting one group with tax cuts at the expense of others.

Get rid of all exemptions except the base $8,000ish exemption. they only really helped the rich anyways.

The federal government shall only Tax income.
The state government shall only collect sales Tax.
and the local government shall do property tax.

If I were in control of the IRS I could train Internal Revenue Tax Agents in a more fun and entertaining technique for enforcing the tax code. :)

Does it involve playing Rugby naked? :D

You don't think these things can be taken into account? Hmm?

taken into account to the point where you actually make enough money off the increased taxes to cover the cost of enforcement?
No.

Does it involve playing Rugby naked? :D

I'm sure I could work that in somehow. :D

No, it discourages homeownership in favor of renting and will probably hugely affect the housing construction industry and discourage development, especially if the taxes are levied at roughly equitable rates to current income tax.

Another proposal: No income tax on anything except corporate profits, set a nationwide 3-5% sales tax, set a flat 10% import duty, & transfer as much government as possible to the several states. End federal spending on education & welfare, cut all federal foreign aid (leaving a voluntary donation center at the State Department),close 75% of our foreign military bases, end the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, back off of the South Korean DMZ, and reduce the size of the US military budget while setting up a quartermaster general who will actually work to prevent gross overspending on shoddy gear for the troops.

I don't like a property tax - it's little more than a government rent bill.

The federal government shall only Tax income.
The state government shall only collect sales Tax.
and the local government shall do property tax.

This system works fine only if you know nothing about federal, state and local budgets.

I know of very few communities in the entire US that could meet a local budget on just property tax.

I know of zero States that could even remotely meet a budget based on Sales Tax income only.

This system works fine only if you know nothing about federal, state and local budgets.

I know of very few communities in the entire US that could meet a local budget on just property tax.

I know of zero States that could even remotely meet a budget based on Sales Tax income only.

those should not be the only thing taxed. just each tax should be exclusive.
other taxes such as Gas tax cigarette Tax, gambling. Id also let states delegate some of their taxes to Counties.

though I think Texas and Florida do pretty well off sales Tax. and Alaska gets by with oil profits tax.

I really dislike this suggestion - but then, I really dislike property taxes full stop.

Income taxes can be justified as a necessary evil - each person gives up a percentage of the amount they earn in exchange for the continuing function and services of government. A properly graduated progressive income tax places the burden of maximum load on those people who are best able to pay and least harmed by the loss.

However, property taxes are not on what you earn, but on what you own. Mere possession of land requires continuous payment, and that payment is regardless of the amount you earn or capacity to pay. Progressive property taxes are actually worse, as they increase or decrease the amount your land "costs" you based upon it's worth - a valuation the landowner has basically no control over or input into.

Property tax is a fine on either good fortune or good management. I cannot see any circumstance where I would characterize them as "fair".

I dont agree on taxing savings. People should be able to save but to actually judge what items are worth is just too hard. I dont know how much my computer is worth now, or the car, or the house (due to improvements). Soooo much guess work.

Taxing income and iheritance/gifts is the best option

A couple of thoughts on this.

Regarding fairness, consider this: My income is a product of expending my life, ie "labor". Land property is, at the simplest, something lying around that someone claimed. Yes, life went into it in the form of improvements, but the root commodity is not a product of one's own labor. If you go back far enough, all land property originates from the unfair principal of "might makes right".

Tothe's comment re it being a government rent actually comes close. Consider it not as a "govenment rent", but as rent owed to all those you exclude from your land.

I quite like LG's idea of a graded scale.

Nobody's really considered the question of the valuation of urban/industrial/agricultural land....

I dont agree on taxing savings. People should be able to save but to actually judge what items are worth is just too hard. I dont know how much my computer is worth now, or the car, or the house (due to improvements). Soooo much guess work.

Taxing income and iheritance/gifts is the best option

the city does it pretty well they get the internal dimensions and a few big things like pool car port ETC. also factor in neighborhood. and such.
The problem is determine how much a house is worth becomes so complicated that a standard home owner will have difficulty challenging how much a city determines a home to be worth. The city will of course tend to inflate the value of the home, unless they are using eminent domain then they tend to lower the value of the home as much as possible sometimes even condemning a building to get it cheaply.

If it aint broke don't fix it
nothing wrong with the income tax

If it aint broke don't fix it
nothing wrong with the income tax

its too complicated. The exemptions allow the rich to hide too much of their income. And every election the parties play on class warfare by promising 51% of the population a tax cut while raising the other 49%. (both parties do it they just focus on different groups)
plenty of room to fix the current system.

The Dermocratic Freedom Caucus seems to be the closest practical niche for me in US politics. I sent some family and friends some info on them, and my mother came back with an objection to their tax plan.


http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/principles-of-the-dfc/

Mom's objections were:
1) Only property taxes, especially only land, isn't a large enough tax base.

2) The plan doesn't consider large cities where very wealthy people live in tiny apartments.

3) It would unfairly tax farmers who "need all the incentive they can get to keep on trying."

Any counter-arguments? Any better suggestions?

I'm tempted to suggest a capital gains tax as being fairer than a simple income tax, although I'm rather unsure about it, as a way to make up the extra monies. Maybe a sales tax or corporate tax...

As for the wealthy living is small urban apartments, I don't really see that as a real objection.

And both the urban and agricultural questions can be addressed by land valuations....

I prefer a value-added tax to anything, but I definitely prefer property tax like this over an income tax. However, it should be noted that land and such natural resources are necessary to live, that their ownership serves this purpose and not financial gain. Furthermore, acquisition of land and other resources is through the exchange of the products of labor, and an increase in the value of the land is often also a measure of labor value.

The tax should focus not on simple ownership, but rather on the economic rent secured from ownership of the land. I am not sure of what measures that could be used.

1) It isn't a big enough tax base for our present government. We can limit government by limiting its revenue, so a smaller tax base is good for me.

2) You are correct, this isn't a valid objection. Value and not size will be measured, I'm sure.

3) Farmers don't deserve any incentives to "keep on trying". If they cannot succeed there are those that will without forcing us to ante into the pot.


No, it discourages homeownership in favor of renting and will probably hugely affect the housing construction industry and discourage development, especially if the taxes are levied at roughly equitable rates to current income tax.No, it discourages homeownership in favor of renting and will probably hugely affect the housing construction industry and discourage development, especially if the taxes are levied at roughly equitable rates to current income tax.

Exactly why the tax should focus on economic rent.

I don't like a property tax - it's little more than a government rent bill.

It is more like an insurance bill.

I quite like LG's idea of a graded scale.

Yes, a progressive taxation that accounts for decreasing marginal utility.

It is a possible loophole, on the negative side. And such accounting would be seen as a justification for government oversight.

If it aint broke don't fix it
nothing wrong with the income tax

There is plenty wrong with income tax. Espeacialy one that taxes the super rich at the same rate as the reasonbly well off.

Property tax, I think is the way to go, as well as an overhaul on income tax. Not sure on land tax.

There is plenty wrong with income tax. Espeacialy one that taxes the super rich at the same rate as the reasonbly well off.

we have a progressive tax in the US. no need to really add any more steps.

Property taxes are no better than other taxes. And splendid-looking tax cuts are always an illusion. Shrink one tax, raise the others. That's one David Copperfield performance by Republicans that only toothless morons tend to believe.

we have a progressive tax in the US. no need to really add any more steps.

Ahhhh well I have no idea about that and obviously base my reasoning on our tax in the UK.

Where (unless what Darling says today is to be belived) the highest rate of income tax is 40% which starts if you earn just under 40k PA, and is the same even if you earn 300k PA.

I believe that everyone should take a quick step looking up Georgism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism) before they make any comments in this thread.

sales taxes and usage fees are obviously the 'fairest'. people who don't drive cars (or profit from people who do) shouldn't be forced to pay for the highways for people who do. and neither should other forms of transportation that have to build and maintain their own rights of way besides.

as long as they do though, oil companies having to pay for bussess and trollys is turnabout fair play.

as for the "poor" automakers, suv makers, loosing profits because no one can afford to put gas in their crap, let them make little narrow gauge trolly trains, and windmills, and solar cells.

there is another question besides owing and not owing, there IS the little matter of what kind of a world do we want to live in.

and governments DO NOT earn their keep, by making war.