Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit

[Steven Douglas]

The words that I type are indeed mine.

Nope. They're in the public domain.

Not if he doesn't type them there. (setting aside for a moment your generic lay use of an actual legal term that has specific meaning)

They can only be turned into private property by government fiat.

Until "public-ized", all new privately developed ideas, new knowledge or discoveries, by their nature begin as private property. Such bits of knowledge, if not openly shared, are called "secrets" - sometimes referred to as "trade secrets". I have some of my own that have benefited me (and by extension my customers and clients) for years. I don't seek patent or copyright protection precisely because I don't see those as ANY kind of real protection anyway. Not to the average person of limited means. That's because patent and copyright protection REQUIRE that those ideas and words which are protected by them be made public (not in the "public domain", legally speaking).

Like many owners of many firms, I opt to keep those ideas that give me competitive advantages completely out of the public domain. There is nothing to prevent others from having these very same ideas, of course, or even placing them into the public domain themselves. But until that happens, they are my trade secrets - my property - my economic advantages - alone. The world at large is entitled to absolutely nothing, save the opportunity to pay for the fruits of my superior labors, as I seek to recoup (and even profit from) the costs of REAL WORK performed, and time, money and energy expended on research, experimentation and development of specific knowledge to aid me in my pursuits. That is not to give away to everyone (and specifically my competitors) for free so that Roy L's collectivist sensibilities can be pleased. Those ideas, those secrets, appear only indirectly in the market as improved processes and products.

That is how my ideas (which are typed, but only privately) are not only my property, but always were. They began that way. They were not "turned into" property by government fiat, or IP laws, but rather human nature, and the capacity of individuals to seek out and obtain competitive KNOWLEDGE advantages in a free market. And that "trade secret" process has been going on for thousands of years, and will continue to be practiced with or without IP laws. And nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[Roy L]

People don't have to go into into debt to buy a home. They didn't historically.

But the modern monetary system is based on debt, so people have to be forced to borrow somehow. Forcing them into debt as the only way to get off the treadmill of the productive, and onto the landowners' escalator that the treadmill powers, is as good a way as any.

Its a pretty modern phenomenon.

It's a modern phenomenon because the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners has become so exorbitant that there is no other way for young people with families to buy a home. The debt money system is there to put them on another treadmill.

 

[idiom]

A tax on land rent cannot, repeat, CANNOT be passed on to consumers, employees, suppliers, or anyone else. It is paid exclusively by the landowner.

Where does the landowner get the money to pay rent?

What is fungibility?

Wherever he likes. If he wants to get it by using the land productively, he can do that. If he just wants to rent it to someone else who will use it productively, he can do that. If he wants to leave the land idle and pay the rent out of his other resources, he can do that. Up to him. He just can't deprive everyone else of the land and not compensate them.

Ability to be exchanged. And your point would be...?

So... the 'landowner' has money coming in from customers, and money going out in land rent tax, but it is absolutely impossible that the money coming in is in any way related to the money going out?

 

[idiom]

But the modern monetary system is based on debt, so people have to be forced to borrow somehow. Forcing them into debt as the only way to get off the treadmill of the productive, and onto the landowners' escalator that the treadmill powers, is as good a way as any.

It's a modern phenomenon because the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners has become so exorbitant that there is no other way for young people with families to buy a home. The debt money system is there to put them on another treadmill.

Why doesn't the young family buy land with cash?

 

[Roy L]

My name is Angela, and if his heirs wanted society to pay them for his contributions, I'd support that.

Then you're a ninny. Such claims of entitlement to live as a parasite on others are simply absurd, outrageous, and evil.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire.

One IP atrocity: the millions of people condemned to slow and agonizing death by AIDS because patent monopoly privileges prevented provision of cheaper treatments.

Are you really unable to understand that you are laying millions of HUMAN SACRIFICES on the altar of your Great God Property? REALLY??

You prefer to leech?

I am ENTITLED to my RIGHTS, one of which is the right to liberty. The exercise of one's rights is not "leeching." Forcibly removing others' rights to liberty in order to extort wealth from them, by contrast, IS leeching.

Good lord, why should the man who wrote things down to entertain us actually get paid for the effort?

He was, and he never held a copyright in his life. Which kinda proves you comprehensively wrong, doesn't it?

That's stupid considering we can simply vote for the right to use his works for free.

We had that right without any votes. It was government that removed it.

 

[Roy L]

(ACtually, written works are indeed protected whether or not you apply for them. )

They have no property status apart from that granted by government. They were never considered property in the whole history of the world until a few hundred years ago.

 

[Roy L]

Who assumed that? Besides you, I mean.

Everyone, including Shakespeare.

And if the law at the time didn't protect the works of the artists, then the law was wrong then.

Garbage. It's forcibly removing people's rights to liberty that is wrong. Duh.

 

[Steven Douglas]

But the modern monetary system is based on debt, so people have to be forced to borrow somehow. Forcing them into debt as the only way to get off the treadmill of the productive, and onto the landowners' escalator that the treadmill powers, is as good a way as any.

Half right, half bullshit. The first part is the cause, the second part that you tacked on is a symptom, as people seek out ways to a) take advantage of the original cause, and b) avoid its adverse effects (thus creating new ones).

The whole "landowner's escalator" was created AND FUELED by the modern monetary system (which is NOT so modern as many think, as currency debasement and fiat currencies are both ancient forms of corruption).

It's a modern phenomenon because the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners has become so exorbitant that there is no other way for young people with families to buy a home. The debt money system is there to put them on another treadmill.

Nice try, with your ad nauseam leftist spin of a "welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners". Take the first treadmill away and the second one disappears, because without lots of free debt money continuously created, and with privately accumulated capital fully competing, land is not a time-friendly investment at all. And we can completely ignore your precious megalopolis monstrosities like New York, Hong Kong and other mutant adverse side effects of a thoroughly debauched, debt-based monetary system, because they disperse into irrelevance under sound monetary policy in a perfectly competitive market as well. With the money supply diffused and not centrally controlled by anyone, there is no longer a need for everyone to be so close to the artificial monetary spigots.

 

[idiom]

Such claims of entitlement to live as a parasite on others are simply absurd, outrageous, and evil.

Oh that is to beautiful to let slide.

 

[Roy L]

If we did that, in 10 years half of the population would again be paying rent to landlords, having long ago sold their land for booze and whores.

ROTFL!! No, they wouldn't, because they couldn't get any money for "their" land any more than a hunter-gatherer could get money from his neighbor for "his" land. He CAN'T SELL his right to use land any more than he can sell his right to vote, and aspiring landowners CAN'T BUY additional rights to use land for the same reason.

It is time for you to stop typing and start thinking.

 

[Roy L]

"The rich" is a diverse group. There's Steve Jobs, the creators of Instagram, and LeBron James.... then there's Ben Bernanke.

Ben Bernanke? Try Hank Paulson. Most of the super-duper uber-rich are scammers, rent seekers and parasites of one stripe or another, as I already showed. And in most countries it's even worse than in the USA.

In my experience the majority of "the rich" got there's the right way.

Nah. "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

The greater the accumulation of wealth, the lower the probability that any significant portion of it was acquired honestly. I used to think Michael Dell was the model of a self-made billionaire. Then I found out he has been using tremendous amounts of prison (i.e., slave) labor. Dig into the sources of great fortunes, and you will find great crimes. Take it to the bank.

 

[Roy L]

It should be noted that Taiwan has a public debt of 40% of its GDP.

That must be one of the lowest in the industrialized world.

 

[Roy L]

So... the 'landowner' has money coming in from customers, and money going out in land rent tax, but it is absolutely impossible that the money coming in is in any way related to the money going out?

The relation is that he is unable to get more coming in than the amount going out, because that is all the market is willing to pay. If he could raise the rent, he would do so in the absence of the tax. Why not? If the market is willing to pay more, that just becomes the new land rent, and he still pays it all in tax.

 

[Roy L]

Why doesn't the young family buy land with cash?

It's too expensive, because they have to pay the taxes that make the land more advantageous and thus more expensive. The more taxes they have to pay, the more the land costs, and the less they can afford to pay cash for it. See California under Proposition 13 for where that leads.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Nah. "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

The greater the accumulation of wealth, the lower the probability that any significant portion of it was acquired honestly. I used to think Michael Dell was the model of a self-made billionaire. Then I found out he has been using tremendous amounts of prison (i.e., slave) labor. Dig into the sources of great fortunes, and you will find great crimes. Take it to the bank.

Does that include all the great Hong Kong fortunes, and can we take that to a Hong Kong bank as well? Or should we consider them exceptions to your Ballsack Rule, and continue to attribute those great fortunes instead to a lack of private landownership in Hong Kong?

 

[Steven Douglas]

...they have to pay the taxes that make the land more advantageous and thus more expensive...

TFF!!!

 

[idiom]

It's too expensive, because they have to pay the taxes that make the land more advantageous and thus more expensive. The more taxes they have to pay, the more the land costs, and the less they can afford to pay cash for it. See California under Proposition 13 for where that leads.

If its too expensive, how does debt help?

Better yet,

EVERY resident citizen gets an equal individual land tax exemption for enough good land to live on.

a) precisely how much land is that?
b) ever heard of a home office?
c) If only the rich own homes (as you have previously argued) then why do they get an exemption?


What I think you are in fact trying to solve is an entitlement mentality and a lick of saving and diligence. There are homes in major cities in America available for very little. Even in the most exorbitant market a home should not exceed 3-4 times ones salary which is easy enough to save for in a few years, especially for a married couple.

 

[idiom]

The relation is that he is unable to get more coming in than the amount going out, because that is all the market is willing to pay. If he could raise the rent, he would do so in the absence of the tax. Why not? If the market is willing to pay more, that just becomes the new land rent, and he still pays it all in tax.

You are confusing margin compression and price equilibrium.

If adding the tax simply pushes the market equilibrium point up, then the tax has effectively been passed directly on. If the market equilibrium point won't go up then margin compression will wipe out swathes of the supply until margins return on a lower cost structure. And the rent has been passed on.

If the tax is hiked high enough in the belief that business and markets do not account for operating costs and market cannot bear more then supply will end.

Landowning is the same as any other business, if the margins are too small you change business.

 

[idiom]

Also relevant:

 

[Weston White]

No, such would merely result in reciprocally increasing that very deficit. The underlying problem is an ethically bankrupted system of government; over-taxation is but one symptom out of many; public awareness and veracious accountability is its prognosis.