The Problem with Taxes and the "Fair Tax"

Fairness in taxation can be qualified in public finance based upon two spectrums: horizontal equity and vertical equity. The former denotes the idea that individuals that have similar or the same ability to pay taxes should pay the same or similar amounts. The latter denotes the idea that individuals that have greater ability to pay taxes should pay more. Both matters of equitability address two different factors: tax expenditures and the nature of the tax system.

The former relates to maximizing horizontal equity, done through elimination of tax expenditures across the board. Citizens of the United States have equally capability of paying taxes. After all, we all are governed by the same laws of the universe, have free will, agency, liberty, and freedom. The latter relates to maximizing vertical equity, done through a reaffirmation of a proportional tax system, and in the United States' case, the progressive tax system.

At the same time, there are numerous opportunities that our flawed tax system provides. For the lower income brackets, individuals, in the aggregate, have negative income tax rates, primarily due to the credits they receive, such as the EITC. Henceforth, it makes no sense why we optimize what is seemingly a negative income tax system by attaching greater vocational and educational incentives to these payments. Doing so could help lift some of the burden upon welfare programs.

 

Speaking of education the only reason I haven't gone to a 4 year college is because they require me to take 2 levels of a foreign language before admitting me. A stupid and costly requirement that I can't afford. So now I'm stuck with a huge student loan and only an AA to show for it. Try getting a decent job with only an AA.

 

Edit: "...why we not optimize..."

 

No, they do not. In the USA, property taxes account for less than 10% of all government revenue, and none at the federal level. In almost all other countries, the ratio is even lower.

Land value is identically equal to the minimum value of the welfare subsidy the landowner expects to get from society and not repay in taxes.

 

The full market value of all public services and infrastructure, which landlords are privileged to charge others for access to. The productive must pay for government TWICE -- once in taxes to government to fund services and infrastructure, and then again in land rent to landowners for access to the same services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for -- in order that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for exactly nothing.

It gets you more government handouts than anything else, which is why land costs so much, and why most substantial accumulations of private wealth are based on landowning.

 

Nope. Flat wrong. Fairness in taxation absolutely requires specific equity: individual tax liabilities commensurate with individual benefits received from public expenditures.

No. It would be difficult to contrive a more fatuous, absurd, and dishonest claim than that. By definition, capability of paying taxes is equal to assets. In practice, it is equal to net worth.

We don't have liberty or freedom. Our liberty and freedom have been removed by force for the unearned profit of landowners.

 

The fair tax would equate to a sales tax of over 20%.

It would create a black market.

 

Like when the social parasites decide to steal more money from the "rich". So the people with the resources to create jobs are forced to shut jobs down or be robbed.

Wonderful ideas the left has.

The rich already pay too much in taxes. Since 100% of this nation's economic problems come from the government wasting too much money on unconstitutional social programs, and since the non-taxpaying poor get to vote in Congressthings who will allocate someone else's money towards them, the solution is obvious:

Expand the tax base downwards, so more VOTERS, not more "rich people" feel the cost of government. This will both encourage the wealthy to stick around, but deter the voters from more something-for-nothing crappola hand-outs no nation can afford.

Oh, it's "loopholes" you don't like?

Fine, there's a loophole-free flat tax available. Everyone pays the same percentage, no bottom escape clause, no deductions. All income, from all sources, be they wages, dividends, or capital gains, are taxed at the same constant rate.

This is the only plan fully consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Who in their right mind would want more socialist taxation?

Want to REALLY fix the issue? Do two simple things:

1) If people can pay monthly rent, they can pay monthly taxes. End payroll withholding for all taxpayers, require them to send a check. Oh, yes, make Joe Sixpack PERSONALLY send HIS OWN money to Washington and the state capitol every month, so he can see and feel how much money the take from him.

2) April 15 is almost exactly six month from election day, in either diretion. Move the tax filing deadling to October 31. Just before election day, so the taxpayer will be critically aware of his government the week before he goest to vote. That'll curb spending alrighty.

 

Eminent domain is employed today to steal land from homeowners to hand over to mall and condo developers, vis a vis Kelo vs New London.

What "welfare" was Kelo accepting for simply owning his own home, and what right did commercial developers and the greedy politicians have that superseded this basic American freedom?

Did the City of New London need yet another shopping center for some reason?

 

When it comes to "community", individual freedoms don't necessarily apply. For example: I can't walk into a library and yell fire? Does this remove my free speech? If you say yes, then where's the freedom of the people in the library to enter a public place that is deemed quiet for study and reading purposes? If you say no, then you must realize that "limiting" your freedoms is not total removal of them.

Was this land that the gov't took from land owners(indians) to give to the whites................which was ok according to white people. If taking property is so bad, certainly your ancestors complained when they held out their hand to recieve this land that the gov't took.

A lot of white families in this country took advantage of gov't taking land and redistributing it. They saw this as the correct thing to do. But now that the gov't is taking their land and redistributing it, they suddenly have a problem with it.

 

Of course they apply. Individual freedom doesn't mean the individual has the right to go around doing whatever he wants to do to other individuals. I should be allowed to read in peace without you coming in and shouting at me. How long have you been on this planet? Don't you know that that's rude? I also don't need you lying to me in order to provoke me to trample some poor old lady on my way out the door.

Taking by force is wrong. You can't show that it's right by pointing out examples of it.

 

You must not have understood the post you quoted, as it was not an argument in favor of eminent domain. That post was simply pointing out the fact that if government were to collect the rent of land, through taxation of land title privileges, that eminent domain would be unnecessary.

Landownership is not a “basic American freedom”. If it were, then everybody would own some land by birthright.

Landownership is in fact a government-issued privilege. If government taxed this privilege to its full market value, as it should, then governments would rarely, if ever, apply this type of legal sanction.

 

Because landowning is an exorbitant welfare subsidy giveaway that the community can't always afford.

The entire value of the land under his home was a welfare subsidy from the community. The fact that Kelo was PAID for the land value the community GAVE HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE is an outrage.

What "basic American freedom" might that be? Not a right to liberty: landowning removes that. Not a right to property in the fruits of one's labor: income tax removes that.

It needed to recover some of the value it was giving away to greedy, idle, landowning parasites.

 

Yet taking by force is precisely the basis of the land titles you claim are rightful.

You got some 'splainin' to do.

I'm waiting.

 

I think you will be waiting for infinity.

Almost makes you wonder if this entire forum isn’t almost entirely populated by privileged parasitic landowners or their paid for shills.

 

The question Roy asks me in that post is the same problem presented in the post I was responding to. My answer, that taking by force is always wrong, is not going to change. Why should I respond to him? Now, if he want's to raise a different question, maybe one about what should be done if land has been taken by force, then fine. But I'm not going to respond to some stupid strawman that raises the exact same question I just answered.

As for your last response to me, you seem to be advocating some system of governance that is very different from the one that we now have. When you say that the government couldn't keep all the money, I have to assume that you are imagining a government which does not provide the level of "services" that our state and federal governments now provide. In that context it would be a completely different conversation. But this thread is about alternative tax systems which could be used by the government as it is now. When someone objected to the notion that the government would not keep all the money, one of you responded that that is not the way YOUR system would work. Well, that's fine, but now you're not just talking about changing the tax system, you're talking about alternative forms of government. I already have my favorite form of government, which is the absence of government altogether. It's unlikely that I could ever be convinced that any system with a government could ever be superior to a system without a government. As far as governments go, I don't see this Georgism thing as any worse than the current system. It's probably better than the current system. But it isn't compatible with the current system, unless you want to ADD the LVT to all the other taxes, and that would definitely be worse.

 

You can yell fire anywhere you like. That has nothing to do with free speech. The right of free speech involves the government preventing speech. Also free speech does not involve freedom from the consequences of what one says.

The indians had no concept of land ownership. They viewed land as belonging to nobody or everybody.

Eminent domain has been around for, literally, centuries. Nothing sudden about it.

 

To save face?

As all land has been taken by force, that is exactly the problem we have identified the solution to.

No strawman. You want private ownership of land to be recognized, honored and enforced by others, and won't address the fact that those land titles are based on nothing but taking by force.

Right. LVT changes everything, yet things also stay familiar in many ways.

Most current government spending is undertaken in a futile attempt to undo the social and economic damage inflicted by privilege, especially landowner privilege, and would be superfluous with a land-rent-funded government.

The government as it is now is an artifact of not recovering publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit. Change that, and you change the very essence of government.

Government doesn't keep the money now. In fact, it spends way more than it takes in.

It's a different kind of government, because its incentives are aligned with the public interest instead of against it.

I.e., feudalism. Been tried. Didn't work.

Scratch an "anarchist" who thinks private property in land is valid and rightful, and his feudalism shines through.

How stupid, ignorant, and/or dishonest would someone have to be to imagine that Somalia is superior to Slovenia, Swaziland to Switzerland, or Cameroon to Canada?

It really isn't compatible with the current system, that's the point.

 

Looks like.

I think it's more that feudal "libertarians" like Maximatic are used to opponents who don't really believe in a human right to liberty, and consequently can't answer arguments based on opposition to forcible violation of rights by government. So when they encounter opposition from someone who believes in the right to liberty and opposes initiation of force and violation of rights even more than they do, they in turn have no answers, and can't figure out what happened.

 

To infinity... and beyond!

 

You know that you have been proved wrong, but you will not allow that fact to prompt any reconsideration of your proved-false beliefs. Simple.