[mdovell]

I might get chastised for saying it but there is a line of thought that is a combination of property taxes and cap and trade called Georgeism.

No sales tax or income. A heavy land tax (i.e. property) with no exemptions and a cap and trade. NH is somewhat like this.

Tax sales and people will go underground, taxing income doesn't work because well if they don't work or don't have to then it dries up. At the end of the day EVERYTHING is owned by someone or something. If you don't want to pay then sell it off. Of course that means having a buyer and that means doing upkeep.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by mdovell

I might get chastised for saying it but there is a line of thought that is a combination of property taxes and cap and trade called Georgeism.

No sales tax or income. A heavy land tax (i.e. property) with no exemptions and a cap and trade. NH is somewhat like this.

Tax sales and people will go underground, taxing income doesn't work because well if they don't work or don't have to then it dries up. At the end of the day EVERYTHING is owned by someone or something. If you don't want to pay then sell it off. Of course that means having a buyer and that means doing upkeep.

Great way to concentrate all property in the hands of the wealthy and reduce the rest of the population to landless slaves.

[Oriz]

Originally Posted by cgregor

"Spending less" doesn't do it when an economy is at the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB).

Taxes are imposed on the transfer of money-- sales, wages, inheritance, etc.-- and property.

When the transfers slow down, tax revenue falls. For example, some $30 billion in corporate income is parked offshore because it would be taxed if it is brought home, so some $5 to $10 billion in tax revenue is lost.

That $5 to $10 billion will be spent by the government-- defense, highways, government paperwork, Social Security retirees, private aerospace contractors, you name it-- and each person who receives that money will spend most of it-- certainly if they are in the bottom 80%. The people to whom they pay it will also spend it, and so it goes around and around. This is called the "multiplier effect." And almost every time it goes around, it gets taxed again-- unless it falls into the hands of the superrich (Mitt Romney paid no taxes for ten years before he ran for President, doing such things as illegally setting up $1 million IRA accounts for his kids) or hedge fund managers (Jack Strauss made $9 billion in 2009 and didn't pay a penny, because Congress gave his ilk a break).

When the tax money isn't there to spend, a lot of people suddenly get very poor or unemployed, which is why we had the Great Recession up until just a few months ago.

It's contrary to logic that when times are bad the government should spend more, but then it's also contrary to logic to anyone who can see the shape of the land around them that the Earth is actually round.

Ahhhh...the return of Keynesian economics. Trust me, I do not need lessons in economics. Keynesian economics is a failure. And this "great recession" you are talking about up until a few months ago? Expect much worse by the time this decade is over.

I still think spending less is much better than taxing and/or borrowing more. There are some things you have to spend on, I'm not saying you can avoid it completely. Hell I even think medicaid for people that cannot afford healthcare(not only disabled etc like in some states but say the way it is in VT now) is not a bad idea. The state of VT is very generous and in some ways it is good but in some aspects it is very excessive.

[Sierrajeff]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Great way to concentrate all property in the hands of the wealthy and reduce the rest of the population to landless slaves.

I think you're misunderstanding it. (And I'm not arguing for "Georgeism", just trying to clarify what it means.)

If "the wealthy" owned all the land, they'd have to pay taxes on all the land. And if the "landless poor" didn't own land, well, then they wouldn't owe any taxes. At least, not directly - obviously the landowners' rent would take into account the taxes that had to be paid. But in this way, it's absolutely no different than our current system; if you lease property in Vermont, part of the landlord's calculation of rent will include the property taxes that the landlord has to pay.

In the meantime, you're *not* taxed on your income, so you are free to engage in labor and create value without a portion of it being taxed by the governmment - unless and until you own property. And you're free to engage in economic activity, i.e., consumption, i.e. buying things - because there's no sales tax. (And of course this is generally seen as a good thing, because it's the creation of things and then the buying / trading of things that makes our economy go around.)

The theory behind the Georgism's taxation being focused on property, is that property (and what it includes, i.e., natural resources) should at its core be a *community* good. So if one person is using that property for their own ends, they pay a tax to the community - almost like paying rent.

So, far from being a throwback to 18th century landed gentry and landless serfs, Georgeism is (in theory) actually a fairly communitarian, dare I say almost socialist, taxation concept.
Georgism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Sierrajeff

I think you're misunderstanding it. (And I'm not arguing for "Georgeism", just trying to clarify what it means.)

If "the wealthy" owned all the land, they'd have to pay taxes on all the land. And if the "landless poor" didn't own land, well, then they wouldn't owe any taxes. At least, not directly - obviously the landowners' rent would take into account the taxes that had to be paid. But in this way, it's absolutely no different than our current system; if you lease property in Vermont, part of the landlord's calculation of rent will include the property taxes that the landlord has to pay.

In the meantime, you're *not* taxed on your income, so you are free to engage in labor and create value without a portion of it being taxed by the governmment - unless and until you own property. And you're free to engage in economic activity, i.e., consumption, i.e. buying things - because there's no sales tax. (And of course this is generally seen as a good thing, because it's the creation of things and then the buying / trading of things that makes our economy go around.)

The theory behind the Georgism's taxation being focused on property, is that property (and what it includes, i.e., natural resources) should at its core be a *community* good. So if one person is using that property for their own ends, they pay a tax to the community - almost like paying rent.

So, far from being a throwback to 18th century landed gentry and landless serfs, Georgeism is (in theory) actually a fairly communitarian, dare I say almost socialist, taxation concept.
Georgism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand it. I just despise the idea. It's just feudalism by another name. People should be free to own their homes without fear of confiscation. Becoming a society of primarily renters with a small part of the population owning all the property is not desirable in any way.

An economy based on constant growth and production of "stuff" we don't need, as at present, is not sustainable and should not be perpetuated.

[mdovell]

Technically everyone rents as that is what property taxes are for. The local government still has to provide for basics of services.

The problem with promoting ownership is the long term costs are not always factored in. The price of rent largely includes the amenities. You cut the check. I worked in home improvement and Diy'ers are fading fast. Sure there can be pride in working with your hands but if you can just cut a check and relax it is just better.

"People should be free to own their homes without fear of confiscation"

Ok but by what measure should people be responsible for paying for local services? Not everyone can work, not everyone buys enough to create significant sales taxes. The definition of wealth if you go back far enough was not money but owning land or at least property. If you don't tax property you end up in a situation where building can fall apart. Look at the NYC rent controls. When rent controls were put into place they could not be raised by the owners. So when inflation hit they simply scaled back on upkeep. Look at NYC in 1945 vs 1975 and you'd see what I mean.

Open systems largely can outperform closed systems. Open sourced systems like Linux and Android are outperforming Windows and OS X largely because of a lack of ownership.

When patents, trademarks, service marks, copyrights etc prevent innovation and cooperation then it becomes a net lag on the economy.

So what should an economy be technically based on exactly? A needs based economy would not work as much because the basics of food, water shelter and clothing are already provided. I'm not claiming public housing is the Ritz by any means but the USA is not a country where tens of millions of people die due to a lack of heat, clothing or starve to death. We have a projection of wants which is harder to track and naturally has ebbs and flows. In all due respects we cannot all work at one massive factory but we can't work at some art museum as well. I love museums don't get me wrong but how often do exhibits change..maybe every three months? Is there that enough in volume to make it attractive? Even a non profit has bills to pay and has to market itself. In order for business to work there has to be a contractual obligation in case people do not pay (same with businesses).

[arctichomesteader]

Taxes should be based on an ability to pay. That's why income tax, as much as I hate it, works. I do not agree with you on renting being better because it's easier. I hate the renter mindset and the dependence it fosters. Moreover, if you factor in the hours worked to pay the rent, you're not getting anything easier.

Peak oil is going to kill the current system. I don't know what to replace it with but we need to focus more on meeting needs and less on creating wants that never existed.

[cgregor]

"Dependence" is not the word I would use to describe the renter's mindset. I think "fear based on domiciliar insecurity" is a more accurate description. Peak oil will kill the system only if global warming doesn't get us first.

[Oriz]

What peak oil? Oil is at 53 and on its way safely under 40.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Oriz

What peak oil? Oil is at 53 and on its way safely under 40.

You have to look at long term outlooks for supply and demand and that's not a pretty picture. What we're seeing is economic war being waged through reducing oil prices.