Obama Declares That 1 Percent Tax Rates on Billionaires are the Height of Unfairness, Not That He Has Any Evidence That Such Rates Exist
During yesterday's big-hug-to-Teddy-Roosevelt speech on the economy, President Obama declared that "Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent—1 percent. That is the height of unfairness." Billionaires who pay just a single percent of their ginormous incomes in taxes? Can you believe it?!?!
Better question: Should you?
Glenn Kessler, who writes The Washington Post's Fact Checker column, decided to look into the source of the data point about billionaire tax rates. Turns out there isn't one. Here's Kessler:
This is a striking statistic. But the only evidence that the White House could offer for it was a TV clip of a conversation on Bloomberg TV, in which correspondent Gigi Stone made this assertion during a discussion about the tax strategies that the very wealthy use to avoid paying taxes. The TV clip was promoted by the left-leaning website Think Progress.
Stone quoted from a Bloomberg News article last month that reported on such tax strategies, which mostly involve complicated ways to defer paying capital gains taxes. But the article never made the one-percent claim. It also noted that the IRS had gotten more hostile to such transactions in recent years.
An administration official conceded the White House had no actual data to back up the president's assertion, but argued that other reports showed that some of the wealthy pay little in taxes. [bold added]
To put it in terms Obama might use: There are some who say that that billionaires pay tax rates as low as 1 percent, but they are just making shit up don't have have any evidence for the claim.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The administration of different arbitrary tax rates is the height of unfairness.
The enforcement of of big-government Land enTITLEment borders that restrict the free movement of people is the height of unfairness.
Tell a lie and repeat over and over, and people will begin to believe it.
...to protect our rights.
There's the lie that all city-Statists use, whether Leftist, Libertarian, or Conservative.
You're more tiresome than the guy on Huffington Post who won't shut up about Ron Paul's need to take a strong stance on circumcision.
Fuck off, fat boy. Ken Shultz may love you, but none of the rest of us do.
How's that "we need government/we love city-Statism (civilization)" schtick working out for you, SugarFree?
Getting it good and hard enough yet?
Why & How Jason Godesky Is So Wrong His Ancestors Are Wrong
Thats almost harder to read than White Indian.
glech.
How WI has fallen. Four years ago, someone bothered to write long essays about his beliefs.
Now all the attention he can get is schoolyard taunts on H&R.
I'd accept your critique as sincere, if you didn't say that just to me. But you're insincere in your judgement.
What's remarkable to me is that someone actually gives a shit enough about that idiocy to draft a retort.
...consider empirical observation from anthropology and archeology to be "idiocy" too.
Nice company you're keeping there, JW.
These people all need girlfriends
I'm ideologically pretty much an anarchist.
I just find you tiresome and boring. You make me embarrassed to think I might share any opinions with you. Every post of yours is like finding out Stormfront has endorsed your favourite candidate for office.
The only non-contradictory anarchy is anarcho-primitivism.
There are 4 main sociopolitical typologies:
NON-STATE society (anarchist, or Acephalous)
? Band (egalitarian)
? Tribe (egalitarian)
? Cheifdom (hierarchical proto-State)
STATE society
? City-State (Civilization)
If you find yourself living in a non-hierarchical Non-State sociopolitical typology, it's going to be a band or tribe. Guaranteed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....l_typology
All the rest of the fantasy anarchist bullshit is fantasical bullshit - the minarchist libertarians are correct on that.
It takes city-Statist aggression to enforce Gambol Lockdown, or enforce "property rights," as it may be whitewashed to cover the aggression necessary for agriculture.
This is, of course, like a discussion of the variety of animal life on earth that groups animals into Porifera, Placozoa, Radiata and Bilateria and then assumes all 'Bilateria' are identical for the purposes of discussion. While all four are separate and distinct groups, any discussion of animals that fails to look at the nuances of bilateral development and speciation isn't going very far...
WI indirectly raises a very libertarian point in destroying his own arguments. Libertarian thought assumes that man is not necessarily good, but acts in his own self interest. A libertarian agricultural state can live with a band of savage gambolers... if they go to pillage our crops, we shoot them; the same defense works against aggressive non-libertarian states. A savage band cannot deal with non-libertarian states, as superior numbers and military force always win. The only way a savage band can prevent eventually being overrun by a non-libertarian state is to destroy the agriculture state before it takes hold. Savage bands are not robust enough to survive a dynamic world with agricultural states. So WI has to destroy the state, regardless of what this means for the people he tramples.
And THAT is an accomplishment!!
No, we need GUNS!
Lots and lots of guns. And bayonets. And bombs. And Grenades. Ooh, and flamethrowers. Can't properly fight back against the government without FIRE!
That and we need our STOCKPILES of weapons to raid, rape, and murder hippies like you when the government eventually collapses!
Live action Mad Max is gonna be fucking FUN! Got my spiked leather gimp suit already made!
...as whitewashed aggression.
But then, the masquerade has been over for a long time.
Libertarians secretly worried that ultimately someone will figure out the whole of their political philosophy boils down to "Get Off My Property." News flash: This is not really a big secret to the rest of us.
I Hate Your Politics
by John Scalzi | March 22, 2002
http://whatever.scalzi.com/200.....-politics/
Still better than the Statists, whose political philosophy is "Give me your property, or else."
Agricultural city-STATISM Civilization) is root of the problem you rage against, yet you can't quite identify it.
Anthropology and archeology shows a rise in violence with the advent of domestication and agriculture - the beginnings of control-freakism over mother earth and all her children, finally including humans themselves.
"Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.73
http://thearchdruidreport.blog.....ation.html
...is what Greer disagrees with Godesky, not the Critique of Civilization, nor the Collapse.
Greer argues for a slow collapse of agricultural city-Statism.
I agree with Greer on all but weekends myself.
You might want to read:
How Civilizations Fall: A Theory of Catabolic Collapse
by John Michael Greer (2005)
http://www.dylan.org.uk/greer_on_collapse.pdf
I just love it when I manage trick-fuck a troll! It's like Xmas at the Bunny Ranch!
I'm so happy, I'm gonna have to go and change my granny panties now!
Scalzi is pretending he's not a liberal?
Obama is a commie-pinko-euro-loving-time-traveling-black-nazi-panther-who-was-secretly-born-in-a-liberal-kenyan-laboratory!
I just KNOW this is fact because Rush Limbaugh keeps telling me over and over that it's true!
Excellent, glad to see that you're drawing an equivalence between President Obama and Rush Limbaugh. We can agree that they're both entertainers who aren't qualified to be present and aren't as smart as they think they are.
I have this secret wish to exile Limbaugh and Obama (along with all the other assholes in DC) to a garbage barge stranded in the middle of the Pacific; there they will all be forced to bare knuckle box until one of them becomes king of their floating hell.
Am I a terrible person to dream such a thing?
No, it sounds lovely.
No, you are just a stereotypical retard voter who gulps down apathy and nihilism.
I don't gulp nihilism, I snort lines of it like coke for brunch every day!
*ahem*
In any case, I was quoting/paraphrasing a Simpsons episode...
you're not terrible, you are just making a false equivalency. Rush has zero impact on your life - he can't commit a single taxpayer dollar, can't write a word of legislation, can't cast a single vote. Obama can effect all three. But, you decide which is worse - some guy with a microphone or one with the power to take your money.
Still doesn't mean I can get my jollies from watching them mash each others into jello!
there's always room for jello.
I hate jello!
Make it pay per view, and you could pay off a good chunck of the debt!
If we do this will all politicians I would certainly change my voting habits!
I'm game for it; it means Mike Tyson could be a serious contender for president!
Are they qualified to be "past", since they're not qualified to be present?
it all depends on what "is" is?
Cigar?
It doesn't have to be true to be common knowledge.
An administration official conceded the White House had no actual data to back up the president's assertion, but argued that other reports showed that some of the wealthy pay little in taxes.
Yeah, but those evil bankers are incessantly tricking people into taking out loans they cannot repay, so we cannot pretend there is a limit to their financial sleight of hand.
"Let me be clear, on this Willie Sutton and I agree."
The rich don't pay their fair share. We know this because they are rich. If they paid their fair share they wouldn't be rich. Therefore taxes must be raised on the rich as a matter of fairness, and they should continue to be raised until they aren't rich anymore. Then things will be fair.
No, that's only the start. True fairness means freeing people from having to work for themselves, so they can work for all of us.
The rich are takers relying on the aggression of city-Statism to maintain the sociopolitical hierarchy.
The KOCH Brothers pay people to whitewash that aggression.
KOCHsuckers swallow the whitewash.
Robin Hood didn't take from the rich to give to the poor you fucking idiot troll. He fought a gorilla war against unjust theft and taxation by the state, ie: Sheriff of Nottingham.
Dude, don't waste your breath giving the troll lessons in medieval history. We're dealing with the sort of poor numpty who regularly vomits up someone else's words as if that meant anything, for heaven's sake.
"gorilla war"
Don't go ape about it.
He's right, you know. Robin brought back gorillas and used them as shock troops.
I think I once read a Robin Hood / Planet of the Apes fanfic...
Thought experiment for the day: if you're a "furry," and you watch Planet of the Apes... do you get a boner?
What's a furry?
Furry
ok. I think I saw an episode of 1000 ways to die where some drunk dude stumbled upon a furry orgie and ended up trying to hump a real bear. Didn't turn out to well obviously.
i do I luv furriez
Think of the weight of bow a gorrilla could pull!
We need gorilla archers! We have a monkey gap!
Sure, they can draw a heavy bow, but their aim is atrocious. Now if you want shock and awe, try bear cavalry!
"The only good human, is a dead human!"
Which is to say, he took from the rich to give to the poor.
no, he took from the state that which was the people's in the first place. Basically, he was refunds before refunds were cool.
In other words, he was for STIMULUS!
Decent effort, but I'll give -1 for this attempt to impersonate WI due to the lack of any bold italic ALL CAPS emphasis like this: en-TITLE-ment
...rent-free.
Thanks for filling out the course evaluation.
The information is sticking.
What's weird about these assertions is that a huge chunk of the overall revenues from the income tax come from rich people already. So this isn't just a lie; it's a Big Lie.
But they're rich!
How can they be rich and be paying their fair share?
It's just not fair that they are rich and other people aren't!
Not fair!
Moooooooooooommmmmmmmmy!
Yes, they sure do spend a lot of time hating different classes of people, don't they? Even the ones who they are totally dependent on.
It helps if you blur the distinction between money and wealth. That way when you see a person with a lot of wealth you can assume that that wealth can be magically converted into dollars that would feed the poor. So every rich person represents thousands of hungry poor people! They're evil! They're stealing from the mouths of starving babies! Tax them! Tax all their ill-gotten wealth away!
1% of a billion dollars is $10,000,000 so if they pay that each year they will pat more in taxes in one year than I will make my entire life, much less pay in taxes during my entire life. The president was right. It is unfair. For us to all be equal we should all pay the same amount in taxes. I'd say the only way for that to happen is for us all to pay $0. Who's with me?!
That's assuming their yearly income is a billion, not their total wealth, but they'll still pay more in taxes than you ever earn. I heard a blurb, but haven't checked on the math for myself, from Ron Paul, that if all the troops outside our borders were brought home the income tax could be eliminated with the savings.
Let me be clear.
Those in possession of billions of third Zimbabwe Dollars pay tax rates less than 1%.
If any billionaire or more likely a billion dollar business only pays an effective 1% tax it is because of the credits that democrats love so much.
Doubling GEs tax rate would not have changed their total liability in the years that they paid no taxes.
Wait a minute, are you trying to tell me that our president is a disingenuous, lying sack of shit?
Sonofabitch, who knew?
Sumbitch pull da wool ova mah eyes bruh eheheh ku kuUukukuu
SUMBITCH!
Uh, anybody who ever listened to anything he's ever said?
Emotional caterwauling is not a plan. At the very least, they're going to have define this word "fair" that they keep using.
on the flip side, please define for me a "fair" amount of Gub'mint spending...
isn't not passing a budget "not fair"...
isn't the EPA creating rules that causes more unemployment "not fair"...
The term makes no sense in that context.
In any case, the point is that the word "fair" is purely subjective and hence useless for determining public policy. It is emotion not reason.
Policy based upon "fairness" leads to institutionalized envy.
No, Warren, they'll never define "fair." It means whatever they want it to mean, just like "social contract" or (from the right) "common sense." Ultimately, it's Rand's argument from intimidation.
Say, speaking of billionaires and taxes, has Obama's crony Warren Buffett paid the one billion dollars in back taxes he owes to the treasury yet?
Warren Buffet only wants other multi-millionaires to pay their fair share. He of course would be exempt from this plan cause that's the easiest way to destroy his competition.
Holy shit Orren Boyle is real.
A 0% death tax would kill Buffett's primary business model.
If the Repubs weren't such craven idiots, there would be an ad on TV tonight calling Obama a liar (using that very word), and asking people to be very careful about believing anything he says.
Hell, they could probably run that same ad with a different lie every week until the election, and never have to use anything that isn't a flat-out factual lie.
But they are pussies, so they won't.
That would be fucking brilliant! One can dream.
This. The republicans have never been a bigger bunch of pussies than they are acting like right now.
The biggest Wall Street toady, purveyor of crony socialism, and blue-collar job destroyer to ever occupy the White House is now trying to put himself forth as a populist? It's more than any sane person ought to be able to stomach. He should be getting mercilessly mocked every hour of every day in TV ads.
It's more than any sane person ought to be able to stomach
---------------------------------
you would think, but the sane are not the target demo here. Obama is after the stupid, the envious, and the slackers, none of whom can be counted on to do even teh slightest research on their own to determine his veracity. To an extent, I find it intellectually insulting that relatively informed liberals like Jon Stewart give him a pass. I understand why the MSM does but I expect better from a comic.
A comic?
Wait a minute ... are you saying that Jon Leibowitz is supposed to be funny? Are you sure about that?
They know perfectly well that the same commercials could be turned on them.
Ron Paul should run this ad. I bet he'd storm to the front of the GOP polls by taking on Obama like that.
And the MSM isn't going to do it either. This morning, Ann Curry on Today interviewed Robert Gibbs and did not ask one single follow up question to these assertions. They where allowed to be presented as fact.
Yet they have the time to fact check everything every GOP candidate says and every freaking day.
It was nothing but an Obama campaing commercial.
This is based on the assumption that Republicans and Democrats are different.
No point yet. There's still plenty of time for that once they have a candidate.
What if said billionaire only has an effective 1% tax rate because of green energy credits? What then, Obusha? What a piece of shit.
The only way to fix this problem is for the Ascended One to personally gaze into the soul of each American, and then issue him/her a bill.
I see you haven't spent much time at cult meetings. Each American should voluntary turn over all earnings and assets to their Lord and Saviour.
AgriCULTure works by catastrophically killing, with plow or death chemicals, all other species but one.
Mono-CULTure.
All of City-Statism (agricultural civilization) can be illustrated by this.
It's why politicians want to wipe out weeds, parasites, cancer, or whatever else they call people they don't want in their field.
So in Bizzaro World, utilizing HUNTING and GATHERING produces no death?
That must mean that Lord Xenu killed and ate all those mammoths!
Shorter WI:
1) Capitalism produces poverty! My solution is better because under it everyone is equally poor!
2) Capitalism and Fascism both have laws against theft! Therefore they are exactly alike!
You can't be in favor of cutting off a melanoma unless you are also in favor of cutting off all of your limbs. [DERP]
That's not a bad idea. I'm sure a lot of people would pay a bill for the opportunity to mind-meld with a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Then the Government could spunk away the money raised on snow cone machines.
Taxes are on income.
Why would the amount of wealth they have matter?
Its possible for a billionaire to have negative income for the year. I hope they pay 0% those years.
See, progressives don't really like to think in those terms. They want to look at current wealth instead of yearly income. So if someone has no discernable income for a year but has billions, they should still pay high income taxes. On what? Well, maybe on the previous year's gains.
See, progressives don't really like to think in those terms.
ftfy
Astrid Lindgren (the author of "Pippi Longstocking") actually got the Swedish socialists voted out of power over this.
It's also likely that a billionaire is retired and has no earned income for the year.
Make no mistake: You know when a politician is lying because his lips are moving and sound is coming out.
Maybe stand up, jog around the room a bit. You need to get your energy up to tackle this level of stupid.
The Progressive Consumption Tax
Anyone with half a brain would get that. Aside from the common sense obviousness of it all, there are also the historical examples of what happens in massive wealth distribution regimes.
I failed to job around the room in advance. Will doing it afterwords help any?
....
no, no it didnt.
It's rather cathartic to read the comments on that article, as the author is getting universally panned.
A top marginal consumption tax rate of 100 percent, for example, would simply mean that if a wealthy family spent an extra dollar, it would also owe an additional dollar of tax.
And we could eat half as much, too, killing off much of the population. Income inequity solved!
Increases in income inequality primarily due to drops in income for white males
No increase in individual income inequality, just household inequality (i.e. not everyone is organised in a nuclear family anymore)
This idea we'll only be happy if everyone is dirt poor is tiresome. Although I'm not really sure what I expected when reading an article on Stale.
You blew the second link, though I'm pretty sure I've previously read its contents.
and that would mean they could save money on all the workers that would be hired to manufacture the materials and do the actual labor in constructing the addition. And when many other millionaires and billionaires go that route, those workers will be out of a job.
Ain't progressivism grand?
Tis better to tax the rich and pay workers to do nothing than to allow the rich to hire workers to build something that will be envied.
Yup, there's no better way out of economic trouble than to make sure the wealthy don't spend any of their money. "Sorry, carpenters, bricklayers and concrete guys, no new additions to the houses of the wealthy. Why don't you guys go to Watts and see what kind of construction jobs you can hustle there?"
According to Fair Tax math, that's actually only a 50% tax.
Individual income taxes, if implemented, should be on gross income. All spending by individuals is rightfully considered consumption and should have no effect whatsoever on individual income taxes. A person is not a business (businesses should not be taxed).
This was kind of a reply to robc.
Fine, its possible for a billionaire to have zero gross income in a year.
In which case, his tax rate should be 0%.
Correct. But that would mean no taxable money was received at all, not that they spent more than they earned. Just saying this because some people here have argued that personal spending (housing, food, medicine, etc.) should be considered "business expenses".
Dont put other people's arguments into responses to me.
I would rather set you on fire for it than the straw man you are pushing.
When I said negative, I meant things like capital gains losses, which shouldnt be taxed at all, but since the gains are, the losses have to be deductible.
Well, it would be easy for the business owner to just buy a home and everything in it and whatever he needs to live on using the business checks. No need of an income when the business takes care of everything. No income and no taxes.
You too can write a Barack Obama speech!
Let me be clear: there are those who say [proposition X, which no serious or relevant person is defending]. There are those who say [proposition not-X, which no serious or relevant person is defending]. I reject the false choice between [X] and [not-X]. Instead, I say [something between X and not-X, which is basically everything in the world].
The guy is a lying piece of shit.
What if I was a billionaire but I didn't do anything with it? I didn't even "invest" my money to make more?
My income per year would be zero and I would actually make money from the government in EITC.
Not sure what point I am trying to make, if any, but all the talk of taxing the rich is a false argument to start with. Not that I think we should tax high income earners either. We should fund the government like they did the first 100 years through import and excise taxes. Just saying.
That's one thing about the spectacularly rich. Sometimes, their income isn't necessarily in line with their assets. What if they're stock and real estate heavy during a market downturn like we had several years ago? What's their income then?
Leaving aside, of course, the enormous amount of taxes most of them pay. It ain't just income tax, either, don't forget.
lol, that idiot Obama really cracks me up sometimes.
http://www.ano-toolz.tk
"import and excise taxes"
Picking winners and losers, protectionism, and social engineering behaviors, is a great idea.
Oh, and because it seems appropriate:
Single Land Tax.
A Georgist tax is less morally offensive in the sense that a pickpocket who nicks your change is less morally offensive than a mugger who kills you and rapes your wife before taking your wallet.
Bullshit.
Kill me mini-whindian if you want, but Im not totally opposed to the georgist view on property.
I take the Mises view on property, who "rightfully" owns it? Well, everyone took it by force at some point, which we oppose, but you gotta draw the line somewhere. So, I really dont have a problem with drawing the line by extracting the rents.
"Kill me mini-whindian"
was supposed to be "Call me...", but yeah, probably some sort of freudian slip there.
The "rents" presuppose that the property belongs to "the People". I know that the Georgist argument is more complicated than that, but it still boils down to "you don't really own that land..."
Taxes should be on consumption/contracts, and if you pay the tax, your contract is enforced (even that 99c cup of coffee contract). If you don't, it's not.
Consumption tax has a deadweight loss. Single Land Tax doesnt.
Im not an anarchist. Even with user fees wherever possible, there will end up being some minimal taxation necessary (tariffs in early America, for example) and the SLT is the least objectionable means of doing it.
And people say Im not pragmatic.
That's their literal argument as I understand it -- that moral property rights start at the point of human agency (typically, labor). Land property rights, to geoists, are justified instead as a utilitarian construct that encourages discovery and efficient use of natural resources (sort of like IP to IP-moderates).
But because wild land was just there, no human has a greater inherent moral right to it than any other in their minds (finders keepers doesn't cut it); those that get utilitarian property rights must, as a result, balance the karmic books by paying rent to humanity (which, in context, is a euphemism for the local state, though I imagine they would prefer a system where the proceeds are just distributed equally to everyone).
An administration official conceded the White House had no actual data to back up the president's assertion
And your point is ...?
Why would the amount of wealth they have matter?
Sandbox economics teaches us that anybody with more (or nicer) stuff than you is "rich" and that's not fair.
What I learned today: Robert Frank is even dumber/crazier than I had previously suspected.
The only "fair" tax is the voluntary kind: a consumption or sales tax on non-essential items.*
*And if there is a question as to whether or not something is essential, the person making the purchase gets to decide then and there.
Any food, clothing, shelter and transportation: essential
Any health related expenditure: essential
Any item to improve one's property: essential
the left would, of course, be against such a tax but won't tell you the real reason why - that it takes the govt out of the equation and puts power in the hands of the individual. Proggies can't have that; if individuals start making decisions for themselves, they would have no use for liberals, who would then have to go find real jobs, something they are woefully unequipped to do.
Nothing fair (or "fair") about a consumption tax of anything.
You shouldnt have to pay a percent of your labor at all, you did it, you earned it, use it however you want.
Hence my support of the SLT. It is based on the acknowledgement that all definitions of property are, in some sense, bullshit. The lockean, "mix labor with the land" is bullshit, yet the georgists support that in a sense, in that they think the labor is 100% yours and the only way you can get out said fruits of your labor is to acknowledge a property right. But, you shouldnt benefit from merely POSSESSING the property (with which even Locke agrees, as he requires labor before you can possess).
In other ways, I think Mises has property right in that it comes down in the long run to Might makes Right. Which is also bullshit, but its realistic bullshit.
I dont claim an SLT is fair, it is merely the least objectionable, IMO.
It also has a nice result of capping taxation, as Ive seen it suggested that the rent is in the neighborhood of 6%.
6% of the value of my unimproved land is a hell of a lot less than Im paying in taxes now. And that would have to be split between local, state and federal.
But does government get to determine the value of your land for tax purposes? Do you have to keep paying every year, even though you paid a tax on the initial purpose and now own it?
At least with a consumption tax, the market gets to set the values of commodities that will be taxed. And once you get rid of the bullshit taxes and credits the government doles out that affect the market, the true value will be established in short order and you will be paying tax on the true market value of something as opposed to a government-manipulated value like you have in property values being determined by the people who will collect the tax on said property.
Consumption tax is a tax on your labor. Hence, it is problematic. PERIOD.
And yes, there are problems with assessment for an SLT. But same thing with consumption taxes, I cant believe you really dont think there will be bullshit government meddling in it.
At least local to me, assessments get reset on sale of a property most* of the time.
*Im sure there are exceptions and there probably should be.
I'm sure my scenario would only work in a vacuum free from government interference (i.e.: no subsidies, no surcharges on any item like smokes or booze as a hidden tax), but yours already exists and has shown to be corrupt in the way property values are currently much higher for tax purposes than they are for resale value, and municipalities are pretty open about saying it's so they can keep their coffers full of tax dollars. - And the only reason property owners aren't rioting at the county tax assessors offices is because they say the taxes are for the children, cops, fireman and all other heroes and if people complain they are heartless assholes.
And I just have a hard time paying taxes on something I paid tax on once before. IOW, if I buy something, the government gets a chance to tax me on it once and only once. After that, tough titty.*
*Tough titty is probably the most perfect term as the government has sucked the taxpayer tit dry and gnarled.
Sales taxes already exist and have shown to be corrupt also.
SLT isnt taxing property, its taxing land, so you can buy and sell all the property you want without ever being taxed on it at all. Not even once.
see my response below. Your point is valid on the land tax, I just fear there is more likelihood of corruption in a system where the tax collectors set the values of what will be taxed as opposed to the market setting it.
As an example, there is an empty lot next to my lot that is .1622 acres and assessed at $20,000. Assuming my lot has same value empty, it would be worth $17,978.
6% of that is $1079.
I will be okay with that being my total federal/state/local tax burden for the year.
But why should you have to pay the same tax again the next year? The market for your property only exists if and when you sell your property, not when some asshat from the county comes out and assesses a value simply so they can extract some of your income...because they are still taxing your labor whether you like to think they are or not because the tax you pay on the property you own can only be paid if you work. The county, state or feds aren't likely to take 6% of your land in lieu of payment.
the tax you pay on the property you own can only be paid if you work.
Bullshit, I get it via "rents".
Either by leasing out the land to someone else to work it, or by getting to use the land for whatever purpose I use it for.
I collect those rents regardless of whether I work or not.
The tax isnt a property tax, I am being taxed the rents on the land, which despite all the leftist bullshit about "unearned" income is really unearned income.
Yeah, I hadn't though about that. Your point is valid IRT collecting revenue from use of your property.
Still, I think this is much more susceptible to manipulation since those who collect the tax are the ones who determine property value for tax purposes. It's the foxes guarding the henhouse.
They could always just assign ten-year deeds (staggering the expiration dates to prevent budget shock), auction them off to the highest bidder after expiration, and then take a fixed % of the proceeds and give the rest to the previous owner (the previous owner would just have to pay the difference, of course, if they won).
It would suck in that you could get kicked out if can't pay the difference between the highest bid and your after-tax share of the proposed sale. But really, it's just a more price-accurate version of the status quo. If the government cut was 5%, for example, you get to keep your land if you can pay 5% of the highest bid plus a dollar. Pretty much the equivalent of a 5% tax on a mark-to-market price.
One year would also work, of course, but might be too chaotic for people to feel secure. It would be more reactive to market changes and work more like the current yearly tax system, though.
I was amused by the solution that Heinlein had for this - you get to appraise your own property, but anybody could buy your property for the appraised value at any time. You can re-appraise your property higher, but you are then on the hook for back taxes & I think some penalties.
This was in Number of the Beast.
But, you shouldnt benefit from merely POSSESSING the property
Why not? By acquiring the property, I paid for it/converted my labor into it. Why shouldn't I get to benefit from converting my labor into land without being taxed?
How on earth, and why on earth, in this day and age, do you distinguish property in the form of real estate from property in any other form?
I've always thought the Georgist land tax was very much an anachronistic attack on the remnants of feudalism.
Essentially, its an excise tax on land, and is every bit as much of a social engineering project as any other excise tax.
"Why not? By acquiring the property, I paid for it/converted my labor into it."
Well, there's certainly the problem of how to fairly handle pre-existing legal rights. Of course, under Georgist moral theory, the original owner of any and all land is humanity in general. Therefore, by asserting a property right on that land without paying humanity back, the first owner "stole" the land. Ergo, you're buying stolen property. Even under the status quo, buying stolen goods does not grant a property right in those goods -- if they weren't known to be stolen, it would merit an exemption from criminal sanction, but it doesn't legitimize the claim of property.
But certainly if you acquire land after the implementation of Georgist system, it would be clear that you were buying something in between a deed and a lease, so that wouldn't really be a true statement at all in the first place.
A "fair tax" is one that charges each according to his needs, not his ability to pay.
I've always thought the Georgist land tax was very much an anachronistic attack on the remnants of feudalism.
Exactly; I can *almost* see the justification of this sort of tax in the context of a largely mythical England in which titled aristocrats own vast parcels and make their living from the "rents" generated.
At this point, I see the principle function of a land tax as a "use it or lose it" scheme to force churn and turnover.
And- the notion that all land is somehow uniformly valuable is idiotic bullshit.
the notion that all land is somehow uniformly valuable is idiotic bullshit.
Ive never seen that claimed at all.
And how can you possibly claim a land tax has no deadweight effect?
Supply curve is vertical, hence no deadweight loss.
Arguments can be made against it, but its a reasonable argument. And close enough to true, if it isnt perfectly true.
So, once again, Obama's trousers are combusting?
< sarcasm > I'm truly shocked and surprised. < /sarcasm >
Is it just me, or does he sound like Herman Cain? "Now I don't have any facts to prove this, but blah blah blah."
And another thing (not that anybody is listening)-
If you take the position that "Society" owns all the land, and you merely rent it from the Collective, you completely abdicate any right to deny your neighbors absolute veto power over anything you want to do with/on "your" property.
Fuck
that.
Not really, it depends on the terms of the contract under which it is rented. If it was rented under a contract that assigned (for the duration of the contract) most of the rights currently associated with ownership, contingent only on continuing to pay a portion of the market value (used as an approximation of the economic "rents" on the land), then the end result would be a lot like the status quo.
Technically it's true that there could be many millionaires and billionaires taxed at 1% their income, but only if you include unrealized appreciation into income. Which is not how the tax code works and not how anybody really wants it to work. You'd recognize gain on your house every year it added value, gain on unsold stocks that appreciated, etc. And you'd have losses (which many people may not be able to use) on assets that depreciated over the year.
Nobody really wants to tax unrealized appreciation, because it can distort behavior and often entails a cash flow problem, not to mention a valuation problem - what's your house worth if you didn't sell it?
The result is that the tax code lies in wait and springs at the time of disposition, because then you have a market price and you have a pile of cash with which to pay taxes.
Should have also mentioned that this effective rate on unrealized income would only hold true in certain years, and would effectively generate huge effective tax rates in later years. If you want to play games and include unrealized income in calculating effective rates, then you have to shift income from the year it was realized to the year it was gained but not realized.
So a zero-basis asset that appreciates $10 a year in unrealized income is sold for $100 after ten years. At 15% capital gains there's zero tax in years 1-9, but there's $15 tax in year 10. If you're allocating income even when it's unrealized, then you have a 150% effective rate in year 10 (and a 15% average over the period, ignoring time value of money).
It's only with the time value of money that deferral is an economic benefit to the taxpayer. But the effective rate would need to be calculated in a way that eventually recouped the deferred rate.
Except for the step up in basis at death, when taxable gain disappears. But this was supposed to be a general gripe about rich people, not the heirs and legatees of rich people.
Here you go - everyone's already parroting it as fact.
http://consumerist.com/2011/12.....eople.html