The high-rise would contribute much more by employing a lot of people that would pay the 10% income tax.
You city people...
I'm in one of the least populated counties in my area. My county went 75% for Santorum.
How's that? The farms would still be in private hands. The tax rate would lower until all was sold. Who's going to buy a farm and then not farm?
You wouldn't tax automakers or factories on their means of production, but you would tax farms and ranches on theirs.
Factories have thousands of people per facility...the income tax contribution is much greater with factories.
Fair as fair gets.
No. But apparently you are too far from a pasture to know which end of the horse that idea comes from. Even with today's relatively high performance and efficiency farming techniques, do as you want and two things will happen: food producers (smaller independents) will go out of business and prices will go up, both on shortages, and as the tax on the land is passed on to consumers (like any other tax on an industry).
But when all else is eliminated but the acreage tax, then consumers would be in better shape even if food prices go up a little.
An army marches on its stomach, an economy does, too. Or do you plan on having those farmers buy $250,000 tractors with 50 cent wheat?
You just said the prices will rise. Isn't that good for the farmer?
With small businesses, which is what a farm generally is, current tax structures encourage reinvesting profits in the business. That won't happen with a Federal Land Tax, which gives ultimate control over the individual home to the Federal Government. The only way to enforce such a tax is by having the ability to seize the asset.
Certainly. The land is what the government fights off enemies for. If a farmer doesn't have the business sense to keep a farm going, he should sell and apply for a job at a factory.
Bad enough that someone can lose their home over a few hundred dollars now to local government. I am opposed to any tax on land. So there.
Your system is about to implode. There will have to be a new system. Hopefully something close to what I have described will win the day. I know no farmers will support it. They've had subsidies for so long they don't know what it's like to have to compete in the real marketplace where failure is an option and the government doesn't rush in to save them when they can't compete as any other business has to.
I have seen higher taxes on riverfront property (not the kind that floods), than on property with equal frontage on paved highways, but it didn't cost the state a dime to put the river there.
I propose the same tax countrywide.
I have seen people taxed on stands of timber, even thought the government had declared that land a 'buffer zone', and the timber, instead of being harvested and managed was nothing but acres of kindling and firewood waiting for a spark instead of an asset.
Under my system, the rate would lower until there was a business interest. The great thing about it is that it would lower to the least common denominator. If just 1/10 of one percent goes unsold, that is a very low rate, but high enough to not let the land go unused. I think you're overestimating how high the rate would be.
Land does better in the hands of those who own it, if not, they won't own it long. Those who own it for multiple generations do well by it, with long range plans, understanding of local ecologies, and monitor the changes in it and act appropriately--all expenses you don't seem to understand, because you would not only fight the owners owning what they own free and clear, but would advocate penalizing them for ownership via taxation. Yet the McMansion owner wouldn't pay any more than someone would pay for an equal acreage of swampland.
Yep. Don't want it? Sell it. Let someone else put it to good use.
I detect a distinct urban bias in your philosophy, one which betrays a lack of understanding of agricultural economics.
No, I've lived around farmers. I farmed with a two-bottom tractor as a teenager (in case you're from Rio Linda, a two-bottomed tractor is a tractor that is just big enough to pull a two-bottom plow). My concern is for a system of funding the government in which all have skin in the game. A system where a person inherits thousands of acres without having to pay anything is a system out of whack. My system will ensure that even if you inherit thousands of acres, you have to try to keep up on things. If my system of very little taxation were to be put into effect without an acreage tax, then there would be no way for productive people to acquire land to develop their ideas. Someone could keep buying land until that someone owns all the land and stifles progress. If the system is in place where a floating rate keeps a little bit of land always for sale, then not only will can someone make their business dreams a reality, but that will also help the family starting out, because if there is a little bit of land unsold then the price will be 1 cent, then the buyer just has to pay the low tax rate to acquire it. It's a fantastic system that would keep everyone on their toes and would be very pro-growth.
We disagree. You would tax the means of production and the rewards of productivity (earned "income"), while I would tax consumption.
A consumption tax would drive business out of the country. If I lived near the Canadian border, why buy a car in America when I could drive across the border and get it 20% cheaper. Thank goodness when Cain ran it made people see the fallacy of a sales tax. I liked Cain, but I didn't like the sales tax.
Why the difference? Currently, massive resources are consumed supporting people who don't pay income taxes and don't own land. Some of these people don't belong here, legally, but they reap the rewards and are protected by our military even though they don't own a square foot of land (they can't they're here illegally). You would leave the burden of taxation on those who own land and legally exchange their labor or expertise for a fee, which leaves out the tens of millions of invaders, free from not only adherence to our laws, but getting a free ride in so many other ways as well.
That's another reform I would amend the Constitution for. A person cannot vote unless that person owned at least one lot of land or was married to a person that owned at least one lot of land. And only citizens could own land. No businesses could own land, a business must rent from a citizen. A business would have to contract with a citizen to protect that business' interest with the landlord.
Those people eat, wear clothing, burn fuel, let them be taxed on that. It is a way to get an estimated 40,000,000 free riders to pay their way.
They would pay in income taxes. A farmer could claim himself a business and not even pay an income tax on top of not paying acreage tax. This makes an acreage tax very necessary.
You will never convert me to your way of thinking. Land taxes have a long history of being used by those in power to take desirable land from those who have it and invite corruption. You should only have to buy your land once, not rent it from the government. The government has plenty of other ways to collect money and isn't the least bit afraid to use them. I'd prefer to be secure in my possessions, thank you.