Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: Smokin' Joe
By virtue of numbers alone, urbanites are the ones who can vote themselves what they want. Concessions made to farmers are relatively minor, unless one considers ADM and Cargill and Monsanto "farmers". The little guy really doesn't have much stroke. That is more of a lobbying problem than farmers voting themselves much of anything, and if you're paying attention, you'll see that it favors the Ag megacorporations and not the family farm.

There's two ag shows I hear on the way to isn't bad, they talk about statistics, technology, etc., but the other spends about 80% of the time talking about how to get the government to give the farmers more of other people's money. Farmers have been at the trough since FDR, it's in their blood now.

Damnit! The land IS managed.

Not very well considering the system is collapsing.

The Government is sitting on half of the acreage west of the Mississippi River.

Like I said, I would constitutionally limit the government to 1/12 of the land. All else would be sold.

Those private owners do their best to manage their own land, especially those who have owned land and passed it on in their families for multiple generations--because failing to do so will cost them everything. Good stewardship isn't an accident, and if you don't practice it, or if the government won't allow you to do so, sooner or later the land is more expensive to own than the return from owning it. Even those who don't care about the land itself can see a losing venture and will divest themselves of the land in order to cut their losses.

Good. Sell it to someone with business sense.

To the untrained eye, land that is "doing nothing" may well be a stand of hardwood timber growing (think trees worth thousands of dollars each, but that takes 100 years), could be cropland with a cover crop that is renewing the nutrients in the soil, can be pasture recovering from grazing or growing the next cutting of hay. Land doesn't sit in stasis, anyway, waiting for humans. Some changes are just more apparent than others. First, land is bought and sold on an open market. Nice land (good climate, pretty views, good soil, etc.) will always command a premium, because there is only so much of it, but it is bought and sold on the open market. Demand sets price. What would you do to change that? Have government control the allocation of land? (Agenda 21?)

I've told you several times what I would do. I would have a floating acreage tax rate, adjusted daily to the third significant digit, to the point where 1 tenth of one percent goes unsold. An equal rate sea to sea due on the yearly anniversary of the purchase. When a person can't pay the rate, or doesn't want the land anymore he/she/they can sell it. This would ensure there will be cheap land to anyone who wants to start a business. All they have to do is pay the rate and they're good for a year.

Debt is optional. Most land is not so expensive unless it is located in urban areas, particularly nice settings, or contains desirable mineral wealth--it is the structures (the ones you wouldn't tax) which make it so expensive, or the location. But you would tax equally an acre of hardscrabble near desert pasture and a piece of Manhattan riverfront. Nothing equitable about it.

You've been brainwashed to think that people other than you should always have to pay more. It should be equal for everyone. If you don't want scrubland, don't buy it. You know where I live there is a lot of land owned by Chicagoans, 3 hours away. Scrubland is valuable to them, they can come down and hunt, ride ATVs, whatever.

You want land, save your money and buy it. You might have to make some concessions as to location, scenery, etc., based on your budget. I'd go for this: 10% retail sales tax at the Federal Level on everything except primary housing, health care (including pharmaceuticals), food, and energy used in the home for lighting, heating, and cooking, etc.) Forgat 'Fair Tax' prebates, just don't tax what is necessary to live (food, shelter, water, medicine).

There's the problem, once you single out items, then it never ends. Everyone will always want their items tax free. And if a person stands in the way of making more items tax free, then that person is a hater according to the liberal media. Easier to just tax income and let the people shop where they please. Canada would love for us to have a sales tax.

No income tax. (encourage people to make more, then they'll spend it, and that will be taxed. No land tax. Excise taxes on motor fuel, limited by law. Tariffs on imported materials and products we can make here. You want a Japanese car made in Japan, pay the tariff. You'd know the cost up front. 'Trading partners' would be encouraged to further improve the quality of their goods to compete.

Great Depression here we come again. Insanity is doing Smoot-Hawley again and expecting a different result.

That would help return the manufacturing sector to our shores, would stimulate domestic energy and mineral production and would help build an economy less vulnerable to outside tampering.

Tariffs make our industries less competitive.

Of course, this would require the serious downsizing of our Federal Government, the elimination of whole extra-Constitutional Departments, and reducing the scope of the Federal Government back to something far closer to original intent. Significant numbers of people (millions) would be booted off of the Great Teat.

On this one thing we agree. The government needs to be constitutionally limited to 1/12 of the population. Cops, teachers, soldiers, all.

Adding another federal department would not correct the real problems of overspending and overreach, and those who lobby in DC would have to go and deal with the Legislatures of the Several States instead, which would limit their influence more than the current system of swaying a mere 269 votes in DC, votes of people who can perform stock trades based on upcoming legislation and profit handsomely, an activity the rest of us would be jailed for. I'm all for reducing the federal landholding (ranging in desirability from arctic tundra near ANWR to prime land near Jackson Hole), but taxing that land as if all land is equal isn't going to line up buyers, because not all land is equal. Some will be more productive than the rest, simply because of underlying geology, soil type, drainage, climate, mineral resources, etc. Some will be more desirable than the rest because of location, the view, topography, proximity to waterways, rail lines, highways, and population centers. That widely desirable land will always command a premium over a patch of North Dakota Prairie with winters down to -40 common, and summers in the triple digits, far removed from navigable water, major highways, and the conveniences of urban centers. But the bottom line is that government should not have the ability to tax someone off their land. Period. When you consider the ability to arbitrarily raise taxes on that land in order to divest someone of their land, to sell that land to a crony and profit, the door is wide open to corruption.

It would not be arbitrary. It would be a constitutional amendment setting the rate to float at where 1/10 of 1 percent goes unsold.

Similarly, tax 'easements', often done in the name of 'economic development' open the door to kickbacks from those who benefit from those easements, commonly at the expense of existing businesses and residents. More corruption. Why create an environment which fosters corruption in government when a knowledge of human nature would indicate the best course is to make corruption as structurally difficult as possible? I don't think a total reboot is in order, but there are some sweeping changes which need to be made.

Its not a matter of wanting a total reboot or not wanting a total reboot. The system is going down and it will be replaced with another system, a total reboot whether you want it or not. It's unstoppable. FDR's system of the welfare state has reached its end. Either we choose a freer set-in-stone system, or we go total socialism. We'll see what the American people choose.

Considering the parasite class is significant in size (and I'm NOT including retirees who get Social Security), that will be difficult, at best, but the average productive person is not nearly so well schooled in the means of destruction and mayhem the parasites are, and might not fare as well in situations of widespread civil unrest which sudden sweeping changes would produce. The results might be far worse than you or anyone can imagine. The question is one of how to make the transition from the current mess to a better one without crashing an already fragile economy and without discarding the Constitutional concepts which those who have governed this Republic have strayed so far from.

The system is imploding. It's past the point of no return.

Keep in mind those founders did not have an income tax, used tariffs, and for the most part, ran a balanced budget.

No they did not run a balanced budget. Jackson was the only president to accomplish a balanced budget with 0 in national debt. It didn't last. We need major economic amendments to the constitution.

33 posted on 05/25/2012 4:10:00 PM PDT by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Partisan Gunslinger
Easier to just tax income and let the people shop where they please.

Yeah, that's working real well.

I've told you several times what I would do. I would have a floating acreage tax rate, adjusted daily to the third significant digit, to the point where 1 tenth of one percent goes unsold. An equal rate sea to sea due on the yearly anniversary of the purchase. When a person can't pay the rate, or doesn't want the land anymore he/she/they can sell it. This would ensure there will be cheap land to anyone who wants to start a business.

You really don't understand land.

Let's try this: Location, Location, Location.

Just one of the things which makes land valuable, and desirable.

Mineral and other resources can do so also, but regardless of the resources, if they can't be extracted and delivered to market profitably, then the land is not economical, no matter how much business sense you have.

Despite your land allocation scheme, I think we can both agree we need one hell of a lot less government. That alone would be significantly cheaper. It is only the growth of government far beyond its Constitutional boundaries that has led us to the point where there will be major economic hardship.

Socialism, including the Ministry of Land Allocation, is not something I want for me or my descendants.

34 posted on 05/26/2012 1:15:50 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson