3 ms·

> And if that "gift" was stolen from someone else beforehand? Then that would be theft and not legitimate property transfer. I was talking about cases where a

> And if that "gift" was stolen from someone else beforehand? Then that would be theft and not legitimate property transfer. I was talking about cases where a gift is from someone who earned it and transferred something, a donation. Not from a government that gifts via regulations or a thief that steals something and donates after the fact. Though there is no difference in either IMHO.

yellowapple 3y ago
How about from a government that conquers land and sells it to profiteers on the cheap (who then rent it out and/or resell it for considerable profit)? How about from a government that - instead of taxing that aforementioned conquered land and the ownership thereof - shifts the tax burden onto the working class (via income and sales taxes), robbing us blind while subsidizing the owning class (who is then happy to rob the working class further via skyrocketing rents)? The vast majority of people "earning" tens of millions of dollars in this country are not doing so via their own hard work. They are doing so by rentseeking - by being parasites on local, national, and global economies. Their wealth derives from theft, plain and simple. And there just so happens to be a solution to that theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
- germandiago 3y ago
  I am against taxes in general. For a tax to exist, there must be a justification. And even after that, I doubt it is fully legitimate: what if someone does not want or use the public schools system or health system? It must pay for it? So yes, a government that taxes people against their will for a service they do not use, from my perspective, is theft to tax payers. A different story is wether we want to support to some extent people who need it: in that case, it would not be theft against a person giving support, but it would not be a tax either. As for who earns and how, yes, crony capitalism is quite bad. What I support is mostly free market capitalism as much as it is feasible and realistic. I am not sure it is ideal, but as long as laws for damage are applied and the consumer is informed, it works way better than all this political cloud full of a system with favors, licenses, and excuses to avoid comptetition. I am even more against subsidizing than taxes themselves. That is the worst possible distortion of things. I am hopeful there are other ways, and I would like to put them in practice. But those come from our own beliefs. The land conquering is a difficult topic. I agree it is not a good thing. But the history of humanity is the history of conquer. A person that violently takes territoy in some way should not be the owner. I am not sure it is practical or even possible to fix that, though.
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    > So yes, a government that taxes people against their will for a service they do not use, from my perspective, is theft to tax payers. Fortunately, that ain't the case for a land value tax as alluded to above. The government provides landowners a service (enforcement of their land deeds), and any "tax" on it is a payment for that service. As it stands, landowners have successfully lobbied the government such that they only pay a tiny fraction (at most) of the rents due to society at large. And so: > For a tax to exist, there must be a justification. And there you have the justification. Landowners owe the full value of the land they own to the society willing to respect and enforce that ownership. Anything short of that full value is theft, and is indeed rather directly responsible for the continued prevalence of socioeconomic inequality both here in the US and worldwide. I do agree with you that how that tax revenue gets spent is an issue. The maximally fair answer would be to disburse it equally to all citizens as a dividend, and then citizens can put that money toward the things they believe to be worthwhile. And on that note: > A person that violently takes territoy in some way should not be the owner. I am not sure it is practical or even possible to fix that, though. LVT happens to be a maximally fair and practical way to fix that, especially when paired with a citizens' dividend per above; assuming, per above, that land ownership and socioeconomic inequality are causally linked, shifting the tax base away from the products of labor (i.e. abolishing taxes on income, sales, and buildings) and onto land values would satisfy the goals of things like reparations, such that those who materially benefited from such conquest are the ones compensating those who did not.
    - germandiago 3y ago
      I would need careful analysis of your explanation before having an opinion since I admit to not have read, thought or known about this very concrete topic, feasibility, etc. in depth. Thanks for this very positive exchange.

yellowapple 3y ago

How about from a government that conquers land and sells it to profiteers on the cheap (who then rent it out and/or resell it for considerable profit)? How about from a government that - instead of taxing that aforementioned conquered land and the ownership thereof - shifts the tax burden onto the working class (via income and sales taxes), robbing us blind while subsidizing the owning class (who is then happy to rob the working class further via skyrocketing rents)? The vast majority of people "earning" tens of millions of dollars in this country are not doing so via their own hard work. They are doing so by rentseeking - by being parasites on local, national, and global economies. Their wealth derives from theft, plain and simple. And there just so happens to be a solution to that theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

germandiago 3y ago
I am against taxes in general. For a tax to exist, there must be a justification. And even after that, I doubt it is fully legitimate: what if someone does not want or use the public schools system or health system? It must pay for it? So yes, a government that taxes people against their will for a service they do not use, from my perspective, is theft to tax payers. A different story is wether we want to support to some extent people who need it: in that case, it would not be theft against a person giving support, but it would not be a tax either. As for who earns and how, yes, crony capitalism is quite bad. What I support is mostly free market capitalism as much as it is feasible and realistic. I am not sure it is ideal, but as long as laws for damage are applied and the consumer is informed, it works way better than all this political cloud full of a system with favors, licenses, and excuses to avoid comptetition. I am even more against subsidizing than taxes themselves. That is the worst possible distortion of things. I am hopeful there are other ways, and I would like to put them in practice. But those come from our own beliefs. The land conquering is a difficult topic. I agree it is not a good thing. But the history of humanity is the history of conquer. A person that violently takes territoy in some way should not be the owner. I am not sure it is practical or even possible to fix that, though.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  > So yes, a government that taxes people against their will for a service they do not use, from my perspective, is theft to tax payers. Fortunately, that ain't the case for a land value tax as alluded to above. The government provides landowners a service (enforcement of their land deeds), and any "tax" on it is a payment for that service. As it stands, landowners have successfully lobbied the government such that they only pay a tiny fraction (at most) of the rents due to society at large. And so: > For a tax to exist, there must be a justification. And there you have the justification. Landowners owe the full value of the land they own to the society willing to respect and enforce that ownership. Anything short of that full value is theft, and is indeed rather directly responsible for the continued prevalence of socioeconomic inequality both here in the US and worldwide. I do agree with you that how that tax revenue gets spent is an issue. The maximally fair answer would be to disburse it equally to all citizens as a dividend, and then citizens can put that money toward the things they believe to be worthwhile. And on that note: > A person that violently takes territoy in some way should not be the owner. I am not sure it is practical or even possible to fix that, though. LVT happens to be a maximally fair and practical way to fix that, especially when paired with a citizens' dividend per above; assuming, per above, that land ownership and socioeconomic inequality are causally linked, shifting the tax base away from the products of labor (i.e. abolishing taxes on income, sales, and buildings) and onto land values would satisfy the goals of things like reparations, such that those who materially benefited from such conquest are the ones compensating those who did not.
  - germandiago 3y ago
    I would need careful analysis of your explanation before having an opinion since I admit to not have read, thought or known about this very concrete topic, feasibility, etc. in depth. Thanks for this very positive exchange.