terry12622000 and uncoolrabbit,
Neither of you have an excuse for your extremely bad grammar and
spelling. Don't you have SpellCheck? You are barely
communicating. The exchange between you both is downright
entertaining - I WISH! I can't ever read but a couple lines. Did
you both go to the same high school, or what?? And you were
actually discussing education (I think). What a gas! Your posts,
written like they always are, can only appear one way:
UNEDUCATED. If you both continue to refuse to learn to write
(many have complained), at least BE BRIEF!
-Mark
+++++++++++++++++
Since you have 1,250 acres you might be biased but it depends on
the
value of your land, if it is very rural it is likely that a
person in
some areas with an acre lot would have more valuable land but
still I
would not want to run either the urban land owner or you off your
land because you can't pay your land value tax, in fact if either
of
you are not a large corporation or a large LLC I don't think you
should be charged anything for your
title.
Still many economist say that a land value tax on the
unimproved
value causes the least amount of harm to the general economy
compared
to an income tax, general sales tax or property tax because the
property owner does nothing to increase the unimproved value of
his
land both Milton and DAvid Friedman have favored a LVT over taxes
on
income, sales or property improvements but as David said to one
geolibertarian once on a blog ( I think the mises blog) Neither
he
or his dad thought taxing 100% of the rent like Henry George
wanted,
actually George in Progress and Poverty said 90% but I fiqure
David
and Milton would think that was to much as
well.
The big problem of both the property tax and the land value
tax
is they run you off your land and home if you can't afford to
pay,
some local areas give a defrement to seniors or veterns .Those
who
live in Florida may know better than me but I think Florida
allows
for a defrement if the property tax is more than 5% of your
income.
If there was going to be a Land value tax a defrement if
the
tax went 5% over your income and you would pay the balance when
and
if you sold the place, if a landowner passed it on to their
children
the owner could pass it on without a gift or death tax but the
chidren would be liable for the defered taxes if and when they
sold
the place. Of course a transfer tax on land with an heir
exemption
might be even better than a land value tax, the AUstrilian state
of
Victoria has both a gradudated land value tax and a graduated
land
trasfer tax they make far more income from the graduated
transfer
tax but the first 150,000 of value is exempt on the LVT but only
the
first 20,000 is exempt from the land trasfer tax, both top rates
are
around 5%. The transfer tax could be a user fee for the title but
if
the county has a monoply on issuing titles I can't see how it
could
be anything but a tax unless it is payed by most corporations
then
it would be a user fee, if the corporation payed the title
transfer
fee with federal reserve notes through the federal banking system
I
think it would even more likely to be a user fee instead of a
coresive tax.--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Alot of people have a hard time grasping anything that is not
overly
> generalized. I am glad to see you are not one of them. I
personaly
> find land tax to be worse than income tax, however I have 1,250
> acres to think about wich could bias me a little, just as the
man
> who claims that he suffers great injustive because he pays more
tax
> then most Americans make as a yearly income might be biased on
> income tax. If the political class is taxed more than other
groups,
> they too of course would have a bias.
>
> One thing, possibly the only one consistant thing, that binds
> libertarians together is that they don't like some one else
deciding
> for them. How do get such individuals to work together as a
group
to
> achieve a common goal that servers the common good, rather than
to
> think of there individual good? Untill this is possible groups
> capable of thinking as a group will pervail, a good example of
this
> is the power that Evangelicals now wield. Group thought, scary
but
> powerfull.
>
> --- In [email protected], "terry12622000"
<cottondrop@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Actuallu Uncool Rabit both you and Tom are on to something
but
> just
> > like the opposite side that gives the impression that only
the
> well
> > to do pay taxes that hurt you two are also overgeneralizing
but
> you
> > are overgeneralizing more than Tom. Tom's idea and the Boston
Tea
> > Party is partly on the right road but still greatly fails to
> adress
> > the issue of the real class problem in the US and it slightly
> > overgeneralizes the 3 classes that are far from the real
> > problem.
> > The real class problem is not between the poor, middle
and
> > upper classes but between the political class and everybody
else,
> > everbody else by a big percent are probably members of the
lower
> and
> > middle class especially the very middle and below, the
political
> > class as a percentage probally tend to be members of the
upper
> class
> > and the upper middle class in other words those making over
the
> > median family income of around 60,000 is where the vast
majority
> of
> > the political class with a majority probably being in the top
1%
> of
> > income earners and or asset controlers, the majority of the
> political
> > class tend to get much more of their income from other
sources
> other
> > than wages or salary that the nonpolitical class, the
political
> class
> > tends to get much more of its income from government prvildge
than
> > the non political class
> > does.
> > Now this does not mean that every rich person is a
member of
> the
> > political class and no poor or lower middle class are members
of
> the
> > political class so the income tax is a piss poor way of
dealing
> with
> > the problem of class, it is a piss poor way of dealing with
> justice
> > and it tends to harm the real economy, sales tax, property
tax
and
> > even the Land value tax aren't much better, actually the
property
> tax
> > and Land value tax are much more unjust if people are runned
out
> of
> > their homes and non corporate business because they can't
pay
the
> > property tax but the Land value tax generally would be much
better
> > for the economy since the owner has no input to creating the
> > unimproved value of his
> > site.
> > I do almost agree with you that since the well off gain
more
> from
> > government then it should be the well off who pays for the
biggest
> > share of government funding but I would say that it should be
the
> > well off political class and they should pay for the Lions
share
> of
> > government funding, the non poltical class rich, middle class
and
> > poor should pay nothing because it is not their government,
they
> may
> > want a government and I do too because one way or another
you
> are
> > going to have a government or governments unless people in
general
> > just give way compltetly to short term instant gratification
but
> what
> > we have is the political class's government so they should be
the
> > only ones to pay for their
> government.
> > The few poor and lower
middle
> > class political class members should pay something to be fair
but
> the
> > well to do political class members should pay the biggest
> > percentage.
> > One possible source of revenue would be to charge
the
> > Federal Reserve a fee on the Federal Reserve note and the
> notations
> > represented by the Federal Reserve Note, a economist from the
> > University of WIS. at Madison describes both as a user fee
and a
> > tranasction tax, cash tranactions would never be taxed except
when
> > they go into the Banking system and when they go out, Liberty
> > Dollars, E-gold Time Dollars, Atica Dollars and barter would
not
> be
> > taxed since they do not deal with the Federal Reserve/FDIC
baning
> > system or the Federal Reserve
> Notes.
> > The US has over 850
trillion
> > dollars of tranactions per year increasing yearly, less than
5%
of
> > tranactions are cash, less than 5% are wages, less than 5%
are
> retail
> > sales. At least 80% are currency trading tranactions ( with a
> great
> > majority being speculative, government bond trading,
corporate
> bond
> > trading, stock options, futures and Real Easte
> > tranactions.
> > Current total government spending for all US
> governments
> > is around 4 trillion a year, so without any drop in
tranactions,
a
> > transaction fee of a little less than 0.475% or 4 dollars and
75
> > cents on every 1000 dollars in transctions or less than 10
cents
> for
> > every 20 dollars or 4 thousand 7 hundred and 50 dollars on
every
> > million. If wages, retail, wholesale, jobber, manufacturing,
> farming,
> > mining, utilities and non finical or real estate tranactions
are
> > exempt then increase the fee by 20% for a fee a little less
than
> > 0.57% or 5 dollars and 70 cents on every 1,000 dollar
tranaction
> > where the fee applies. Of course tranactions will be reduced
> > especially since much of the tranactions are speculative
FOREX
> type
> > currecy trades on a daily base. If all taxable tranactions
are
cut
> in
> > half, doubling the tax to over 1.1% is likely not to make up
the
> > short fall, so it is likely the fee could not be flat on all
the
> > taxable
> >
>
tranaction.
> > Increasing the fee on the unimproved land and
natural
> > resource value tranactions, on government privildge such as
> corporate
> > copyrights, corporate trademarks, corporate patents,
corporate
> > licences in the use of broadcasting, the use of utlity right
of
> ways,
> > corporate hospital lincence and corporate or LLC professional
> licence
> > would likely result in being able to cut the tranaction fee a
lot
> on
> > currency trades. Also small corporations and LLCs could
probably
> be
> > exempt from most of the above fees without much reduction in
> revenue
> > but I see no reason to cut the fees of large nonprofit
> corporations
> > including those run by the government including the pension
funds
> > corporations of government employees.--- In
> > [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Why give in to defeatism? Solutions are possible if people
> persever
> > > and do not give in to the justifiable feelings of
powerlessness.
> > >
> > > From Thomas Knapp's blog:
> > >
> > > The Boston Tea Party calls for legislation adopting an
annual,
> > > regularized increase in the personal exemption to the
federal
> > income
> > > tax of $1,000 or more, and the additional application of
said
> > > personal exemption to all FICA/Social Security taxes paid
by
> > > employees and employers.
> > >
> > > Members of Congress (mostly Democrats) routinely propose
and
> vote
> > > for increases to the personal exemption, so it's
politically
> doable.
> > >
> > > Increases to the personal exemption give EVERYONE who pays
taxes
> a
> > > tax cut, from the janitor at the local factory to Bill
Gates.
> > >
> > > Increases to the personal exemption remove people from the
tax
> > rolls
> > > and withholding treadmill entirely (every time the
exemption
> goes
> > > up, more people's income falls below the taxable amount).
> > >
> > > Applying the personal exemption to Social Security payments
> would
> > > address the extreme regressivity of the Social Security
system.
> The
> > > poorest people pay proportionately the most in Social
Security
> > taxes
> > > (since the requirement to pay is capped at a certain income
> level
> > > in, I believe, the $60K range), and they receive the fewest
> > benefits
> > > (due to shorter lifespan).
> > >
> > > Eliminating the income tax is the best option. Failing
that,
> > cutting
> > > it is. Replacing it with a tax that doesn't cut taxes,
doesn't
> > > remedy redistribution problems, doesn't eliminate (or
probably
> even
> > > reduce) the associated bureaucratic and administrative
costs,
> and
> > > puts every American on government welfare is just a scam if
the
> > goal
> > > is to reduce or eliminate taxation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "big_azz_ham"
<big_azz_ham@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Though they pay more of the total of goverment income,
> > > individualy
> > > > they are not paying a larger percentage of there
disposable
> > > income.
> > > >
> > > > Why should anyone have to pay any percentage of their
income,
> > > > disposable or not?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I am for eliminating the income tax. However, it's
a
> moot
> > > point
> > > > as we have passed the point of no return. We are going
to
> > achieve
> > > > economic armeggedon in my life time. The federal debt is
$8.5
> > > TRILLION
> > > > and getting larger every year. Last year, the interest
> payments
> > > alone
> > > > amounted to $406 BILLION. 95% of all income taxes are
paid
by
> > the
> > > > upper 50% of household income which means half the
households
> > > don't pay
> > > > anything. Eventually, countries like China will stop
buying
> our
> > > debt
> > > > when it looks like we will become insolvant. That's when
the
> > > > government will crank up up the printing presses and try
to
> print
> > > their
> > > > way out of this mess. The dollar, which is already a fiat
> > > currency,
> > > > will be become worthless. It's so predictable.
> > > >
> > > > In a word, we are screwed.
> > > >
> > >
> >
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
