Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
Robin Hood Tax ?
- Thread starter Origanalist
- Start date
EcoWarrier
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2012
- Messages
- 513
A Robin Hood tax means a one-off tax that taxes the rich to aid the poorer. It is best to have an economic system that does not make poor people in the first place and fairly distributes wealth - Geonomics.
CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,922
Um, I can't view the tube here, but this is ironic.
Contrary to popular belief, in the legend of Robin Hood, he did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. He stole from the tax collectors to give back to the people.
Huge difference. So a "Robin Hood Tax" doesn't even make sense.
Contrary to popular belief, in the legend of Robin Hood, he did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. He stole from the tax collectors to give back to the people.
Huge difference. So a "Robin Hood Tax" doesn't even make sense.
Exactly, Robin Hood was stealing back what was already stolen. Ergo, neither theft nor tax, but justice.
Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
No, it doesn't, or the video. It's just another wealth redistribution scheme with a new name.
Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
EcoWarrier
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2012
- Messages
- 513
England went to taxing the values of land (LVT) and not the people to great successs.
Zippyjuan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 49,008
The Federal Reserve doesn't own any gold. They do store some for the government but they don't own it- officially it belongs to the Treasury.
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,431
Well, they're already stealing from us, the people.... I don't imagine they'd have any qualms about stealing from the government, either
MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 6,011
My parents were recently taxed out of a house they "owned." I guess it depends on how you define success.
EcoWarrier
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2012
- Messages
- 513
But that was not Land Value Taxation that drove your parents out of their house. It would not occur using LVT - no Income and Sales taxes or property taxes (tax on the building, which is as silly as taxing your washing machine)
Last edited:
Zippyjuan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 49,008
From the way LVT has been described, it certainly CAN price people out of their homes. If the value of land goes up, then the taxes demanded go up. It could rise enough to force some people to sell- just as property taxes can do today. I have not heard of any provisions that the value of the land is locked in at what you paid for it (which the state of California does with its property taxes- the assessed value of the property only gets raised when it gets resold- this helps prevent people from getting taxed out of their homes).
Sorry to hear that, MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2. To work hard to purchase your own place at a price you could afford and to lose it because later tax raises made it eventually unaffordable.
Sorry to hear that, MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2. To work hard to purchase your own place at a price you could afford and to lose it because later tax raises made it eventually unaffordable.
EcoWarrier
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2012
- Messages
- 513
That occurs right now. They can sell at a top price and downsize or move to lower tax area. If old then they can be exempt. If the House is worth a fortune then the tax can be deferred until sale of house or death. Should the state allow an old lady live in a house that is worth a fortune who will leave it to her kids? mmmmmmmmmmm
What you are on about Winston described as the "Old Widow bogey" which has been debunked regularly over the past 130 years. The landed bring this one out every now and then as it is the only angle they think they have - well they think they can con the hard of thinking using it.
If she wants to stay there, fine, she can roll up the tax to be repaid on death (which is another reason why it is vitally important that Inheritance Tax is scrapped as well). If we replaced as many taxes as possible with LVT, then people would have more disposable income during their working lives, so mathematically, they could easily build up a fund to pay the LVT in retirement in the same way as people build up a fund to pay for food or electricity or anything else in retirement.
Winston Churchill described that argument as having been repeated to "exhaustion" over 100 years ago!
But when we seek to rectify this system, to break down this unnatural and vicious circle, to interrupt this sequence of unsatisfactory reactions, what happens? We are not confronted with any great argument on behalf of the owner. Something else is put forward, and it is always put forward in these cases to shield the actual landowner or the actual capitalist from the logic of the argument or from the force of a Parliamentary movement.
Sometimes it is the widow. But that personality has been used to exhaustion. It would be sweating in the cruellest sense of the word, overtime of the grossest description, to bring the widow out again so soon. She must have a rest for a bit; so instead of the widow we have the market-gardener...
Sometimes it is the widow. But that personality has been used to exhaustion. It would be sweating in the cruellest sense of the word, overtime of the grossest description, to bring the widow out again so soon. She must have a rest for a bit; so instead of the widow we have the market-gardener...
The LVT tax doesn't "need" exemptions - it's the Poor Old Lady who wants to stay in a big house who's demanding the exemption, so we offer her a kind of state-sponsored equity release scheme.
Anyway the house is just unspent or unspendable income. The opportunity cost of the capital locked up in the land of this house is the reason that she is a poor widow. This is where good equity release schemes could work well in tandem with LVT. It would encourage the widow to access the income locked up in her land and wean herself of winter fuel payments and the like. It might also make her think about how best to transfer her wealth to her children and it would wean them off treating the house as a golden goose. Good. Why should the rest of us pay for their inheritance?
There is also the universal individual excemption fro LVT. It has all been thought through.
Last edited:
Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
It's utopia just waiting to be implemented. C'mon people, get on the LVT train!
EcoWarrier
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2012
- Messages
- 513
That is about the only sensible thing you have ever wrote.
Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
)
Zippyjuan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 49,008
So in this respect, LVT would not be an improvement over the current property tax system.
So I guess the state should steal it instead- for the good of the community of course (even though she is also a member of that community). If I have something of value, I should not be able to give it to my children if I so desire?
Wrong. If you replace one tax with another, mathematically you have exactly zero more dollars to save or spend. You are still paying the same amount of your income in taxes. And actually, most people would end up paying more since 46% of income tax filers last year owed no net income taxes and would now be responsible for LVT being added to property they either own or rent (land owners who rent the land out and are paying LVT will include the LVT in the rents they charge just as they currently do with other taxes like the property tax). That leaves them with LESS money to save for future tax assessments.
Similar threads
