From: Chuck Kuecker (ckuecker@mcs.net)
Date: Sun Jun 13 1999 - 11:17:56 MDT
At 11:40 PM 6/11/99 PDT, Raymond G. Van De Walker wrote:
>
>
>I favor a single tax on real-estate, because protecting real-estate is
>the only value that I'm certain that only government could create. Also,
>this tax therefore cannot punish consumption by poor people, and only
>punishes relatively well-off land-owners. At the same time, it punishes
>inefficient use of land.
>
What is the rational behind a tax that punishes anyone? This is just an
excuse to cheat, as well as an underhanded way of 'getting even' with those
who may be working harder and smarter than the taxman..or 'social
enginnering'...
Who defines 'inefficient? McDonald's might define this quite differently
from the Sierra Club...
Property taxes IMO are among the most unfair. Retired persons sometimes
must sell just because they no longer can afford taxes. Anyone who suffers
a financial setback, or an expensive illness or other personal tragedy that
interferes with earning potential may also lose their land to the state.
Any tax on property is essentially 'rent' paid to the real owners of the
property, the state.
A consumption tax, on the other hand, follows the flow of actual wealth in
the economy. Everyone participates in the same portion that they buy
anything. Poor perople pay relatively little, wealthy folk pay tons. Even
poor people should help run the infrastructure - they are getting benefits
from it!
If the tax rate is set high enough to encourage cheating, then the taxing
bodies are just not very intelligent. Setting the tax low enough to
encourage lots of commerce will ensure that there's never a shortage of
taxable transactions.
Forcing govt. powers to live within the limits of the actual economy is
just common sense. If the economy sucks, they have no business putting
themselves (and the people) even further in debt. Let them live within
their means, just as the rest of us must.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:09 MST