Land value tax

[ALiberalModerate]

Defense spending is constitutionally authorized. The other federal programs you mentioned are not, and therefore must be abolished completely.

Well, neither the courts nor the vast, vast majority of the American people agrees with you on that one. It's neither here nor there though, my point is that contrary to popular mythology, the majority of federal spending is not waste, fraud, and abuse, its those programs, thus if you want significantly reduce federal government outlays, you have to cut defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As no one is willing to do that for a variety of reasons, we got to figure out how to pay for it.

 

[Glitch]

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.

Nobody likes paying taxes. If they do, then there is something seriously wrong with them. Taxes, however, are a necessity if we expect to have any kind of government. As much as I hate taxes, my personal preference is for a direct tax. Tell me exactly how much tax I owe and who I need to pay. I truly hate indirect hidden taxes. It only makes government that much less accountable. It is an underhanded tax whose purpose is to deceive, created by those with no morals.

I was not arguing the type of expense, only that once the expense was made it did not continue to become more expensive due to inflation. The value of the purchased good or property remains unchanged once the purchase has been made. The improvements on the property, however, change in their assessed value based on numerous things, including inflation in small part.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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?

Social Security and Medicare should remain as “pay as you go” systems funded by the dedicated FICA payroll tax.

Medicaid (and other “safety net” programs) should be funded primarily by the states since intrastate is (primarily) where the spending on those goods/services occurs.

As for defense spending, why not demand that all private (DoD contractor) providers become non-profit under that single-payer system. After all, that was one of the primary ‘cost cutting’ provisions contained in M4A bills.

Of course, the point is largely moot given that deficit spending is the preferred “budgeting” technique used by our congress critters. For FY 2020, total federal deficit spending exceeded total federal income tax revenue making it quite clear that (sufficient) federal tax revenue is not required to support federal spending.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Nobody likes paying taxes. If they do, then there is something seriously wrong with them. Taxes, however, are a necessity if we expect to have any kind of government. As much as I hate taxes, my personal preference is for a direct tax. Tell me exactly how much tax I owe and who I need to pay. I truly hate indirect hidden taxes. It only makes government that much less accountable. It is an underhanded tax whose purpose is to deceive, created by those with no morals.

I was not arguing the type of expense, only that once the expense was made it did not continue to become more expensive due to inflation. The value of the purchased good or property remains unchanged once the purchase has been made. The improvements on the property, however, change in their assessed value based on numerous things, including inflation in small part.

Personally, I would rather the government (local, state, and federal), tax my income, and leave me alone after that.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Social Security and Medicare should remain as “pay as you go” systems funded by the dedicated FICA payroll tax.

Medicaid (and other “safety net” programs) should be funded primarily by the states since intrastate is (primarily) where the spending on those goods/services occurs.

As for defense spending, why not demand that all private (DoD contractor) providers become non-profit under that single-payer system. After all, that was one of the primary ‘cost cutting’ provisions contained in M4A bills.

Of course, the point is largely moot given that deficit spending is the preferred “budgeting” technique used by our congress critters. For FY 2020, total federal deficit spending exceeded total federal income tax revenue making it quite clear that (sufficient) federal tax revenue is not required to support federal spending.

If a country controls its own currency, then technically if it can do something, then it can afford to do it (obviously at some point inflation could result).

 

[Glitch]

Personally, I would rather the government (local, state, and federal), tax my income, and leave me alone after that.

You can expect to loose anywhere from 60% to 75% of your income then. If people knew their actual total annual tax bill, they would be rioting in the streets and tar and feathering every politician they meet.

Although it is not written anywhere, it has generally been accepted that property taxes were reserved for local government. The States would use sales and income taxes and the federal government (since the Sixteenth Amendment) would also use income taxes.

There are a few, typically isolated locations were you can buy property and not pay property taxes, sales taxes, or income taxes. As you can probably expect, there are no government services in those locations either. Delta Junction, Alaska, is one such location.

 

[jimbo]

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 could take a hit. We don't need to be the world's police force. SS and Medicare are bought and prepaid programs, poorly managed but prepaid.

There are many, many other government programs. Most of which could be cut massively without upsetting me in the slightest.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If a country controls its own currency, then technically if it can do something, then it can afford to do it (obviously at some point inflation could result).

The problem is that the federal government is allowed to declare (define?) what the ‘official’ inflation rate is.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You can expect to loose anywhere from 60% to 75% of your income then. If people knew their actual total annual tax bill, they would be rioting in the streets and tar and feathering every politician they meet.

Although it is not written anywhere, it has generally been accepted that property taxes were reserved for local government. The States would use sales and income taxes and the federal government (since the Sixteenth Amendment) would also use income taxes.

There are a few, typically isolated locations were you can buy property and not pay property taxes, sales taxes, or income taxes. As you can probably expect, there are no government services in those locations either. Delta Junction, Alaska, is one such location.

Total taxes in the United States as a percentage of GDP are 24%. If you taxed all income, regardless of whether it was employee income or capital gains income, you would not pay 60% or more of your income in taxes. BTW, some states have minuscule property taxes.

 

[Glitch]

SS and Medicare are bought and prepaid programs, poorly managed but prepaid.

Incorrect. In 1968 a Democrat-controlled Congress abolished the Social Security Trust Fund and made it part of the General Fund - where it remains today - in order to pay for their unconstitutional socialist "Great Society" and "War on Poverty." Every penny collected in Social Security tax goes directly into the General Fund where it is spent by both political parties equally.

Since 1968 Social Security has become a massive federal Ponzi scheme - robbing Peter in order to pay Paul. We sent Bernie Madoff to prison for running the exact same scam as Social Security continues to do today.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Incorrect. In 1968 a Democrat-controlled Congress abolished the Social Security Trust Fund and made it part of the General Fund - where it remains today - in order to pay for their unconstitutional socialist "Great Society" and "War on Poverty." Every penny collected in Social Security tax goes directly into the General Fund where it is spent by both political parties equally.

Since 1968 Social Security has become a massive federal Ponzi scheme - robbing Peter in order to pay Paul. We sent Bernie Madoff to prison for running the exact same scam as Social Security continues to do today.

That is not why they did it. At the time both programs were collecting far more in revenues than they had going out in outlays. It was becoming a big enough problem that it was literally slowing the velocity of money in the economy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Total taxes in the United States as a percentage of GDP are 24%. If you taxed all income, regardless of whether it was employee income or capital gains income, you would not pay 60% or more of your income in taxes. BTW, some states have minuscule property taxes.

GDP has little to with income tax rates. Income taxes neither tax all (gross) income nor tax it at the same (effective) rate. The bulk of the (80K pages of?) federal income tax code is dedicated to defining deductions, exclusions, credits and ‘special’ accounting methods based (mostly) on how and upon who that (gross) income was later spent. It is quite common for two households with exactly the same (gross) income to pay vastly different federal income tax amounts.

 

[Glitch]

Total taxes in the United States as a percentage of GDP are 24%. If you taxed all income, regardless of whether it was employee income or capital gains income, you would not pay 60% or more of your income in taxes. BTW, some states have minuscule property taxes.

Sorry, but I do not consider the New York Times to be a credible source. Particularly from an article written 8 years ago.

Just federal taxes alone already exceeds 50% of your income, and that does not include State or local taxes. There is more to federal taxes than just your income tax. There is also a 12.4% Social Security tax, the 7.65% MediCare/MedicAid tax, the Communication Tax, the Gasoline Tax, etc., etc., etc. When you add up all the taxes you are paying on your income it easily exceeds 60%. If you happen to live in a highly taxed State, like New York or California, then you are paying closer to 75% of your total income in taxes of one form or another.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is not why they did it. At the time both programs were collecting far more in revenues than they had going out in outlays. It was becoming a big enough problem that it was literally slowing the velocity of money in the economy.

Hmm... isn’t that a fancy way of saying that if no outside demand for US Treasury bonds exists then the federal government will simply borrow from itself?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Sorry, but I do not consider the New York Times to be a credible source. Particularly from an article written 8 years ago.

Just federal taxes alone already exceeds 50% of your income, and that does not include State or local taxes. There is more to federal taxes than just your income tax. There is also a 12.4% Social Security tax, the 7.65% MediCare/MedicAid tax, the Communication Tax, the Gasoline Tax, etc., etc., etc. When you add up all the taxes you are paying on your income it easily exceeds 60%. If you happen to live in a highly taxed State, like New York or California, then you are paying closer to 75% of your total income in taxes of one form or another.

How do US taxes compare internationally?

TOTAL TAX REVENUE US taxes are low relative to those in other high-income countries (figure 1). In 2018, taxes at all levels of US government...

www.taxpolicycenter.org

.

It's 24% total of GDP. Hell even in communist countries, you don't have 70% of GDP going to taxes.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Hmm... isn’t that a fancy way of saying that if no outside demand for US Treasury bonds exists then the federal government will simply borrow from itself?

It's a fancy way of saying that money spent is better than money that is idle.

 

[OrphanSlug]

We are still having this debate? There is no economic model presented by anyone so far that suggests a land value tax does anything beneficial for economic stability or really anything else.

 

[Glitch]

How do US taxes compare internationally?

TOTAL TAX REVENUE US taxes are low relative to those in other high-income countries (figure 1). In 2018, taxes at all levels of US government...

www.taxpolicycenter.org

.

It's 24% total of GDP. Hell even in communist countries, you don't have 70% of GDP going to taxes.

Who said anything about GDP? We're talking about income and how much of it is taxed. That has absolutely nothing to do with the GDP.

 

[Glitch]

We are still having this debate? There is no economic model presented by anyone so far that suggests a land value tax does anything beneficial for economic stability or really anything else.

Land value tax has always been beneficial to the government implementing the tax (local government specifically), and always to the detriment of the taxpayer.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's a fancy way of saying that money spent is better than money that is idle.

Hmm... how does that differ from there is more money (fiat currency) than outside demand for borrowing it or that we can ‘stimulate’ (borrow/print?) our way to prosperity?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Who said anything about GDP? We're talking about income and how much of it is taxed. That has absolutely nothing to do with the GDP.

60% plus of income is not taxed. We are an upper middle class household. Between federal, state, and local taxes, we pay a lot. Just the same it is no where near 60% of our income.

Total income in the US last year was 17.6 trillion. Total taxes at all levels of government was 5.4 trillion.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Land value tax has always been beneficial to the government implementing the tax (local government specifically), and always to the detriment of the taxpayer.

My point is the tax itself has no economic benefit at all (in the purpose of fiscal policy sense.)

 

[ttwtt78640]

My point is the tax itself has no economic benefit at all (in the purpose of fiscal policy sense.)

As opposed to what other form(s) of taxation? Surely you can see the benefit of having (some) government and that having (any) government requires that government to be funded somehow.

 

[Geoist]

A stupid idea. Nobody with any intelligence is reviving this scam of a tax.

How do you expect any productive debate when, in the first sentence, you personally insult those who disagree with you?

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.

The value of the land is affected by not only the improvements on the site, but also surrounding the site. Why do you think people see homes as a good investment? Why do you think a modest single story home in California can sell on the market for over $1 million (hint: it is ten minutes from Google headquarters). Even though the home itself may wear down over time, the value of the site almost always increases in the long run because of development around the site.

Bread goes stale and more can be produced. The value of a specific loaf of bread goes down for those obvious reasons (same with most food). Land increases in value as it is developed and population increases. Each generation gets screwed more and more when it comes to land/home ownership.

In Alaska they separate the value of the land and the value of the improvements.

That is the land value tax being referred to in the article. I think you are confused...

 

[Geoist]

My point is the tax itself has no economic benefit at all (in the purpose of fiscal policy sense.)

It absolutely has an economic benefit. Unless you see an economic benefit to the super-wealthy hoarding land as more and more citizens struggle to pay a mortgage...