• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Land value tax

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
44,786
Reaction score
15,226
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Current property taxes tax both land value AND improvements (e.g. your house). LVT would lower or eliminate the tax on the house and raise the tax on the land value itself. Most homeowners would actually see their tax lowered.

(70-80) Studies showed that homeowners saved on property taxes with a two-rate building-to-land shift in nine of eleven cities. The cities were Fresno CA, all cities in Oregon, Bergen County (in N.J.), Pittsburgh, Erie, Harrisburg, and Allentown in Pa., Korumburra and South Melbourne in Australia. Homeowners paid slightly more in Farrell and Monessen, Pa. (but not Monessen today). See IT, 10/78.
So we will replace the income tax with a lower tax on land? That sounds more like tax anarchy than a plan. Current property taxes are used to fund schools and local and State Govt. Where is the Federal revenue coming from?
 

Geoist

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
17,195
Reaction score
8,652
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
So we will replace the income tax with a lower tax on land? That sounds more like tax anarchy than a plan. Where is the revenue coming from?
'Tax anarchy' is a funny term. I wonder if that's what they call it in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming, where they have no state income tax?

As I stated before, I want a revenue neutral transition to LVT. I'm no purist. I'm not 100% against income tax. And I vastly prefer a progressive income tax over a flat income tax.

I, more or less, agree with the following link's ranking of 'good taxes to bad taxes:'
(I don't really agree with their perspective of 'sin taxes' being 'bad taxes' as those things being taxed are often a heavy burden on society, but I don't think they should be 'taxed out of existence')
 

Drawdown

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
11,528
Reaction score
3,028
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually, it seems there are 31 vacant housing units for every homeless person in America, as of 2019. You're right that many probably wouldn't even pass regulations, but this is where local and state governments need to step in and rehabilitate or rebuild these areas.
That is awesome in theory. In practice, however, it doesn't work so well. At least not in my area. The city decided to force rental houses be upgraded. The results were people either bundled them, borrowed what they could get and let the banks foreclose or just walk away completely. Houses ended up condemned. City tears them down, attaches a lien, executes on lien, refuses to sell the property for less than what they put into them which is usually many times the land's market value and then donates the property to its own quasi-public entity to add to its "land bank". At risk low income people then have fewer affordable housing options even if they were slums,, housing stock goes down, and rental prices go up, and people either have to move away or end up homeless. The government seldom welds a delicate touch as these officials have to justify their jobs' existence.
 

SkyChief

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
651
Reaction score
347
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Land value tax is proposed by geoists/georgists who want to REPLACE property tax (and other taxes) with it. It would not be double-taxation. So there goes your baseless accusation.
Any form of DIRECT taxation is a Marxist idea ( Land Value Tax is a DIRECT tax).

Income Tax and Property Tax (or "Land Value Tax") are forms of a DIRECT tax. Direct taxes punish a person for being successful and acquiring wealth.

The best form of taxation is INDIRECT taxes which include sales tax, per unit tax, value added tax (VAT), goods and services tax (GST ), excise tax, and tariffs.

These indirect forms of taxation do not punish an individual for being successful.

Land Value Tax is a terrible idea because it discourages land development. The more you develop your land, the higher you're taxes. It sucks.
 

Geoist

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
17,195
Reaction score
8,652
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Any form of DIRECT taxation is a Marxist idea ( Land Value Tax is a DIRECT tax).
This is preposterous. Nothing about direct taxation is 'Marxist.'

Are you calling Thomas Paine Marxist?
"it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is in individual property." - Thomas Paine


Jefferson?
"Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a commonstock for man to labour and live on." - Thomas Jefferson


Churchill?
"It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment, derived from processes, which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public. Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position - land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions. " - Winston Churchill


This is the problem with conservatives these days. All they have is hyperbole. Everything to them is Marxist. Everything to them is communist. They've lost all intellectual integrity.


Income Tax and Property Tax (or "Land Value Tax") are forms of a DIRECT tax. Direct taxes punish a person for being successful and acquiring wealth.
The country used direct taxation from the get-go.


The best form of taxation is INDIRECT taxes which include sales tax, per unit tax, value added tax (VAT), goods and services tax (GST ), excise tax, and tariffs.
Sales tax often forces people to shop elsewhere.

These indirect forms of taxation do not punish an individual for being successful.
Your reasoning makes no sense. You say that direct taxation punishes success, but then your indirect taxation (eg sales tax) punishes basic survival (food is taxed, clothing is taxed, etc).

Land Value Tax is a terrible idea because it discourages land development. The more you develop your land, the higher you're taxes. It sucks.
Lol, have you paid attention at all? LVT reduces/eliminates taxation on your improvements. Tax on house, for example, is eliminated. You pay for the land value MINUS your improvements.
 

Waddy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
6,953
Reaction score
1,848
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What he means is that declaring bankruptcy and leaving the costs of removing the old buildings to State is cheaper. Demolition is not cheap.
Removing what buildings? Some of those malls have set empty for over two decades now. I wonder if anyone is even paying the property taxes on them anymore.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
2,767
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Inflation. Since it hasn't changed in 20 years, the land is worth less, not more, than it was 20 years ago in real dollars.
Inflation is reflected in the initial cost of the land. Since inflation is the result of a sustained drop in the purchasing power of money, it has absolutely no effect once the goods or services has been purchased. Nothing else you purchase increases in value due to inflation, so why should property?
 

Drawdown

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
11,528
Reaction score
3,028
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Inflation is reflected in the initial cost of the land. Since inflation is the result of a sustained drop in the purchasing power of money, it has absolutely no effect once the goods or services has been purchased. Nothing else you purchase increases in value due to inflation, so why should property?
The house you build on that land will increase in value due to inflation.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
2,767
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The house you build on that land will increase in value due to inflation.
Nothing, once purchased, increases in value due to inflation. That includes land or improvements made to the land. Once again, inflation is reflected in the initial cost of the land and has absolutely no effect on any goods or services once purchased.

Improvements on the land increase in value only if similar properties recently sold increased in value. It is also very possible for you to lose value on the improvements on your land if similar properties recently sold have decreased in value. If properties in your neighborhood are being sold for less than their original purchase price, or less than their assessed value, then you can also expect the improvements on your land to also decline in assessed value.
 

SkyChief

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
651
Reaction score
347
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is preposterous. Nothing about direct taxation is 'Marxist.'

Are you calling Thomas Paine Marxist?
"it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is in individual property." - Thomas Paine


Jefferson?
"Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a commonstock for man to labour and live on." - Thomas Jefferson


Churchill?
"It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment, derived from processes, which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public. Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position - land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions. " - Winston Churchill


This is the problem with conservatives these days. All they have is hyperbole. Everything to them is Marxist. Everything to them is communist. They've lost all intellectual integrity.




The country used direct taxation from the get-go.




Sales tax often forces people to shop elsewhere.



Your reasoning makes no sense. You say that direct taxation punishes success, but then your indirect taxation (eg sales tax) punishes basic survival (food is taxed, clothing is taxed, etc).



Lol, have you paid attention at all? LVT reduces/eliminates taxation on your improvements. Tax on house, for example, is eliminated. You pay for the land value MINUS your improvements.
Tax, tax, tax

blah, blah blah.

you dumb socialists are like a broken record.

We need to reduce spending and taxes.

We need to de-centralize government power.
 

Geoist

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
17,195
Reaction score
8,652
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Tax, tax, tax

blah, blah blah.

you dumb socialists are like a broken record.

We need to reduce spending and taxes.

We need to de-centralize government power.
Well, thanks for not actually addressing anything I said like a mature adult.

But once again, you expose your ignorance. I am a geo-mutualist, which is a sub-group of anarchism, so I'm about a decentralist as they get. ;)
 

Drawdown

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
11,528
Reaction score
3,028
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nothing, once purchased, increases in value due to inflation. That includes land or improvements made to the land. Once again, inflation is reflected in the initial cost of the land and has absolutely no effect on any goods or services once purchased.

Improvements on the land increase in value only if similar properties recently sold increased in value. It is also very possible for you to lose value on the improvements on your land if similar properties recently sold have decreased in value. If properties in your neighborhood are being sold for less than their original purchase price, or less than their assessed value, then you can also expect the improvements on your land to also decline in assessed value.
Things increase in value due to inflation. You have gone off the deep end. I am done with your nonsense defense of a completely unworkable wealth tax.
 

SkyChief

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
651
Reaction score
347
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is preposterous. Nothing about direct taxation is 'Marxist.'

Are you calling Thomas Paine Marxist?
"it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is in individual property." - Thomas Paine
<snipped>

The country used direct taxation from the get-go.

<snipped>
The second plank of the Communist Manifesto is about DIRECT TAXATION policy. ten-planks-of-communist-manifesto

The things that the colonists were taxed on were imports of textiles, wines, whiskey, coffee and sugar. Later came the Stamp Act (a tax on documents) and the Whiskey Tax, which were INDIRECT taxes as well.

In the 1790s, the first (direct) Property Tax was introduced to provide funding for an undeclared war with France. 65 years later (1862) the first Income Tax was levied to provide funding for the Civil War.

In both cases, DIRECT taxation was imposed to MAKE WAR.

Today, Income Tax is still used to expand the Military to MAKE WAR.

Thomas Paine was an anti-federalist. He supported a Property Tax, and redistribution of wealth, but that doesn't necessarily make him Marxist (IMO).
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
2,767
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The second plank of the Communist Manifesto is about DIRECT TAXATION policy. ten-planks-of-communist-manifesto

The things that the colonists were taxed on were imports of textiles, wines, whiskey, coffee and sugar. Later came the Stamp Act (a tax on documents) and the Whiskey Tax, which were INDIRECT taxes as well.

In the 1790s, the first (direct) Property Tax was introduced to provide funding for an undeclared war with France. 65 years later (1862) the first Income Tax was levied to provide funding for the Civil War.

In both cases, DIRECT taxation was imposed to MAKE WAR.

Today, Income Tax is still used to expand the Military to MAKE WAR.

Thomas Paine was an anti-federalist. He supported a Property Tax, and redistribution of wealth, but that doesn't necessarily make him Marxist (IMO).
You left out the Communication Tax everyone pays on their phones, to this day. That originated in 1901 as a Luxury tax on those who few who owned telephones in order to pay for the Spanish/American War.

A direct tax is also the most honest and transparent form of taxation. As painful as it may be, the taxpayer knows precisely how much they are paying in tax and too whom. The indirect taxes are a sneaky hidden tax. When prices increase with a VAT the taxpayer is never sure if was the cost of the good/service increasing or the amount of tax. Take gasoline, for example. How much of the price of gasoline per gallon is local, State, or federal tax? When the price of gasoline increases, how do you know what increased the price of oil or one of the taxes?

An indirect tax is only proposed by dishonest representatives who want to keep the cost of government hidden from the taxpayer.
 

SkyChief

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
651
Reaction score
347
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You left out the Communication Tax everyone pays on their phones, to this day. That originated in 1901 as a Luxury tax on those who few who owned telephones in order to pay for the Spanish/American War.

A direct tax is also the most honest and transparent form of taxation. As painful as it may be, the taxpayer knows precisely how much they are paying in tax and too whom. The indirect taxes are a sneaky hidden tax. When prices increase with a VAT the taxpayer is never sure if was the cost of the good/service increasing or the amount of tax. Take gasoline, for example. How much of the price of gasoline per gallon is local, State, or federal tax? When the price of gasoline increases, how do you know what increased the price of oil or one of the taxes?

An indirect tax is only proposed by dishonest representatives who want to keep the cost of government hidden from the taxpayer.
I'm glad you mentioned the Gasoline Tax, as it is a good example of why INDIRECT Taxes are better for the taxpayer.

A productive individual that works hard and owns property has no choice with Direct taxes. He/she MUST pay them or face jail, or a lien put on his/her property if Income and Property taxes go unpaid.

A person can however avoid paying indirect taxes. If someone doesn't want to pay the Gasoline Tax, he/she can drive an electric vehicle. If someone doesn't want to pay the Marijuana Tax, he/she can grow it him/herself. If someone doesn't want to pay the Bandwidth Tax (data usage over a set baseline), he/she can go to Starbucks and use their free wi-fi and pay no Tax.

INdirect taxes allow the taxpayer to choose which taxes he/she is willing to pay and which ones he/she is NOT willing to pay. Taxpayers should have a choice. That's the reason our country was established - - the colonists were sick and tired of being taxed by King George III. They declared independence from England because they wanted taxation with REPRESENTATION. So they formed a constitutional republic (Congress) to represent the people.

Direct taxes take away our incentive to explore, invest, innovate and develop/improve our property.

As you pointed out, they harder we work and the more money we make and the more property we acquire, they more taxes we are forced to pay. That's a clear DISincentive (is that even a word?) to better ourselves and make life better for our children.
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,264
Reaction score
1,332
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If you are referring to farmers, keep in mind not every acre of land is of equal market value. Farmers live in rural areas where the land is far far cheaper. Also, LVT would mean no property tax on barns, silos, homes, storage sheds, stables, etc.

Didn't we have an debate about this a few years ago? I pointed out how PA's LVT was crap.
 

Geoist

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
17,195
Reaction score
8,652
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Didn't we have an debate about this a few years ago? I pointed out how PA's LVT was crap.
Hey if you want to argue how taxing land and capital at same rate is a good thing then knock yourself out.
 

Geoist

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
17,195
Reaction score
8,652
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
2,767
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm glad you mentioned the Gasoline Tax, as it is a good example of why INDIRECT Taxes are better for the taxpayer.

A productive individual that works hard and owns property has no choice with Direct taxes. He/she MUST pay them or face jail, or a lien put on his/her property if Income and Property taxes go unpaid.

A person can however avoid paying indirect taxes. If someone doesn't want to pay the Gasoline Tax, he/she can drive an electric vehicle. If someone doesn't want to pay the Marijuana Tax, he/she can grow it him/herself. If someone doesn't want to pay the Bandwidth Tax (data usage over a set baseline), he/she can go to Starbucks and use their free wi-fi and pay no Tax.

INdirect taxes allow the taxpayer to choose which taxes he/she is willing to pay and which ones he/she is NOT willing to pay. Taxpayers should have a choice. That's the reason our country was established - - the colonists were sick and tired of being taxed by King George III. They declared independence from England because they wanted taxation with REPRESENTATION. So they formed a constitutional republic (Congress) to represent the people.

Direct taxes take away our incentive to explore, invest, innovate and develop/improve our property.

As you pointed out, they harder we work and the more money we make and the more property we acquire, they more taxes we are forced to pay. That's a clear DISincentive (is that even a word?) to better ourselves and make life better for our children.
Indirect taxes are only a "better choice" if your are dishonest scum and want to hide the actual cost to the taxpayer. The overwhelming majority have absolutely no idea how much federal or State gasoline tax, because politicians want to hide the tax from the consumer. Only a direct tax is an honest tax. You know precisely how much you are paying and to whom.

You only think you can avoid indirect taxes. You can't, because they are hidden. You can only avoid what you can see. The tax on the electricity you used to power your electric vehicle includes taxes from the coal or natural gas power plant that generated the electricity. You are paying taxes you aren't even aware. As are the overwhelming majority, because they are all indirect, and therefore inherently dishonest, taxes.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
2,767
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A stupid idea. Nobody with any intelligence is reviving this scam of a tax.

The value of goods, once purchased, do not continue to increase in value due to inflation. If I buy a $3 loaf of bread today, I will not have to pay more for that same loaf of bread tomorrow if the price of bread increases to $4 due to inflation. It still only cost me $3. Once purchased, inflation is no longer a factor. Inflation is only a factor prior to the purchase.

The same is true for land. If I buy an acre for $10,000 that initial selling price already includes inflation. Once the property has been purchased inflation does not continue to affect the property. Only the improvements made to the property will effect the overall value, but the property itself remains unaffected once purchased. Just like the loaf of bread stayed the price I paid for it, and did not increase in value once it was purchased due to inflation.

In Alaska they separate the value of the land and the value of the improvements. In my particular case the value of the land immediately tripled when I sunk a well and installed a septic system. However, the value of the land has not changed since those two improvements were made. The improvements I made (like building a house), however, have increased in value. That increase was not due to inflation, at least not primarily. The increase was the result of surrounding similar properties being sold at higher than assessed values. There are many reasons why a home may be sold for more than its assessed value, inflation could be one of those reasons, but not the primary one.

The reverse is also possible. During the late-1970s and early-1980s inflation was going through the roof and long term interest rates reached 18%. People ended owing more for their home than it was worth. Lots of people just walked away from their mortgage at that point. Why pay $250,000 for a home that is only worth $150,000? You are better off just taking the $150,000 loss.
 

Waddy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
6,953
Reaction score
1,848
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
A stupid idea. Nobody with any intelligence is reviving this scam of a tax.

The value of goods, once purchased, do not continue to increase in value due to inflation. If I buy a $3 loaf of bread today, I will not have to pay more for that same loaf of bread tomorrow if the price of bread increases to $4 due to inflation. It still only cost me $3. Once purchased, inflation is no longer a factor. Inflation is only a factor prior to the purchase.

The same is true for land. If I buy an acre for $10,000 that initial selling price already includes inflation. Once the property has been purchased inflation does not continue to affect the property. Only the improvements made to the property will effect the overall value, but the property itself remains unaffected once purchased. Just like the loaf of bread stayed the price I paid for it, and did not increase in value once it was purchased due to inflation.

In Alaska they separate the value of the land and the value of the improvements. In my particular case the value of the land immediately tripled when I sunk a well and installed a septic system. However, the value of the land has not changed since those two improvements were made. The improvements I made (like building a house), however, have increased in value. That increase was not due to inflation, at least not primarily. The increase was the result of surrounding similar properties being sold at higher than assessed values. There are many reasons why a home may be sold for more than its assessed value, inflation could be one of those reasons, but not the primary one.

The reverse is also possible. During the late-1970s and early-1980s inflation was going through the roof and long term interest rates reached 18%. People ended owing more for their home than it was worth. Lots of people just walked away from their mortgage at that point. Why pay $250,000 for a home that is only worth $150,000? You are better off just taking the $150,000 loss.
Glitch, you are both right and wrong on this. I prefer direct taxes for exactly the reasons you give. I like to see where, when and how much I am taxed.
Several years ago I read an article that followed making a washing machine from mine (ore) to final product. When you added up all the taxes along the way, which might include mining royalties if on government land, the taxes paid by each company in the supply chain, the transportation costs (fuel tax, registration and property taxes on trucks and rail) payroll taxes for employees, retail store taxes, sales tax on final purchase by consumer ( in my city that's 10%) etc. In other words, every tax along the way to supply chain to final purchase, it came to 40% of the final sales price. Government makes more off of a GE washer than GE does. But since most of it is indirect (unknown) to the consumer, they are not even aware of it.

Where you're wrong is about inflation. It most certainly does not end with your purchase. Your local government will periodically re-assess your property, and even if you have made no improvements it will be valued higher (most of the time). Your property taxes will go up. So will your insurance. When you go to sell in the future the land will probably bring more; due to inflation. And the money you have in your pocket is worth less every day. That's the main reason people buy now instead of later; what they buy now will be worth more in the future. Unless they buy stupid shit like cars and vacations. Some things never appreciate due to inflation.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
2,767
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Where you're wrong is about inflation. It most certainly does not end with your purchase. Your local government will periodically re-assess your property, and even if you have made no improvements it will be valued higher (most of the time). Your property taxes will go up. So will your insurance. When you go to sell in the future the land will probably bring more; due to inflation. And the money you have in your pocket is worth less every day. That's the main reason people buy now instead of later; what they buy now will be worth more in the future. Unless they buy stupid shit like cars and vacations. Some things never appreciate due to inflation.
Except that is not the case. As I previously posted, my property taxes are broken down by the value of the land, and the value of the improvements made to the land. Once I sunk a well and installed a septic system the value of the land tripled. However, the value has not changed in the last 17 years. On the other hand, the improvements I made to the property (namely my home) have increased in value over the years. The assessed value of my home has increased in value by 46% over the last 17 years. The land still remains the exact same price it was in 2003 after it tripled in value. Only the improvements that I've made to the land have increased in value. Part of it was due to inflation, but that has been less than 5%. The majority of the increased value was determined by the value of the properties sold that were similar to mine.

If I were to sell my property today, hopefully it would be worth more than the assessed value of the improvements, but the price of the land itself remains unchanged. I recently checked, and empty lots - with no improvements at all - that are my size, are still going for the same price I paid in 2003. The value of the land hasn't changed by a penny in the last 17 years.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,568
Reaction score
13,786
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Land is already taxed. Are you advocating a separate tax on already taxed land?

Instead of creating another tax, why not look for ways to decrease government spending? I know, that's a radical concept. But might be worth a try.
Any significant reductions in federal government outlays would require massive reductions in defense spending, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Which of these are you wanting to cut significantly?
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
2,767
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Any significant reductions in federal government outlays would require massive reductions in defense spending, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Which of these are you wanting to cut significantly?
Defense spending is constitutionally authorized. The other federal programs you mentioned are not, and therefore must be abolished completely.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,568
Reaction score
13,786
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
A stupid idea. Nobody with any intelligence is reviving this scam of a tax.

The value of goods, once purchased, do not continue to increase in value due to inflation. If I buy a $3 loaf of bread today, I will not have to pay more for that same loaf of bread tomorrow if the price of bread increases to $4 due to inflation. It still only cost me $3. Once purchased, inflation is no longer a factor. Inflation is only a factor prior to the purchase.
I personally hate property taxes, so I am not for the tax in the OP, but a loaf of bread is like an operating expense while buying land is like a capital expense.
 
Top Bottom