Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LandCafe] LVT to be debated in Parliament?

Expand Messages
  • Scott Bergeson
    Quoting JDKromkowski on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:52:55 -0500: ___Jdk___ PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the 16th amendment would
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 12, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Quoting JDKromkowski on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:52:55 -0500:

      ___Jdk___
      PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the
      16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only
      applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those
      were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to
      be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.
      -----

      Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. It
      applies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.
      Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may have
      been considered federal income as some sort of privilege?
    • derekrss
      ... It depends on how high the LVT rate is and on what the revenue is used for. Assuming no CD or UIE, if the rate is set low and the revenue is used to pay
      Message 2 of 28 , Nov 12, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
        >
        > Derrekrss: "Now granted, it wasn't all roses. The absence of a citizen's
        > dividend (or universal base exemption) meant that poverty and inequality
        > was rampant. However as far as economic growth is concerned, land taxation
        > was a great success. And although it wasn't LVT in theory, it wasn't too
        > far off in practice because the tax was based on valuations from 1672,
        > which were unimproved by the standards of the 18th century, let alone the
        > 19th.
        >
        > So, agreed that there are zero modern examples. But there is a huge
        > historical example."
        >
        > JDK: Well, if in fact this is a "huge historical example", then land value
        > taxation is a huge historical failure. Because the theory is that rentier
        > behavior is THE CAUSE for poverty and inequality. So if there really was
        > LVT, then there shouldn't have been "rampant poverty and inequality". I'd
        > have to say that LVT as a funding source for imperialism - the taking of
        > land by force - is a peculiar juxtaposition.
        >
        > The idea that a CD is required to do anything for poverty and inequality is
        > really not sound. At most a CD reduces the amount of time required for
        > work to sustain and thus in theory would free up time for leisure and
        > education. But CD is not a necessary thing to do that. Progress
        > unencumbered from supporting a parasitic rentierist class would do that
        > too. Even work week hour laws will do that.
        >

        It depends on how high the LVT rate is and on what the revenue is used for. Assuming no CD or UIE, if the rate is set low and the revenue is used to pay large salaries to a few thousand politicians, civil servants and military officers, there is little difference in its effect from using rent to pay a few thousand landlords. If the revenue is set high and used to pay a low wage to an army of soldiers consisting of half the able-bodied population, there is little difference from LVT plus a CD, (except that it ties up half the A-B population in unproductive labour). The first option will encourage growth to some extent but won't do much to touch inequality. The second option will give near-equality but poverty will be widespread because of the lack of productive work being done.

        In the case of the 18th century United Kingdom, we can certainly point at the economic growth effects of the LVT-like land tax but the tax was never at a high enough level to change the income distribution much. Also no revaluation was done after the initial valuation of 1672. Moreover when UK government spending at the end of the Napoleonic wars approached a figure which could have justified a land tax level high enough to make a difference to inequality, the landowners in Parliament baulked at paying and so we got Peel's income tax when revaluation plus a higher land tax rate would have been the better solution to fix the revenue shortfall.
      • John David Kromkowski
        You are incorrect. The US federal government has ALWAYS been able to tax income from WAGES without apportionment and without the 16th amendment. There was
        Message 3 of 28 , Nov 13, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          You are incorrect.

          The US federal government has ALWAYS been able to tax "income" from WAGES without apportionment and without the 16th amendment.  There was an income tax on wages in the civil war. This is because taxing wages is an "indirect" tax because it is a tax on the transaction of getting paid for labor.

          For the non-US and may some of the US, an apportioned tax is required for "direct" taxes. Apportionment means that each state covers a portion of the revenue to be raised in proportion to its population. So a state with 10% of the population comes up with the 10% of the revenue.  

          There are basically only two types of taxes that are "direct" are a capitation (tax on being a person, a head tax) and a tax on Land (The SCt again noted this in dicta in the Health Care Act case.  A tax on land is a direct tax and must be apportioned.)

          If you are really interested in this topic.  I'd suggest reading these cases in this order

          Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796) (also first case challenging constitutionality of a law.)
          Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
          Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

          ___Jdk___

          PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the
          16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only
          applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those
          were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to
          be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.
          -----
          SB:
          Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. It
          applies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.
          Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may have
          been considered federal income as some sort of privilege?


          On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Scott Bergeson <scottb@...> wrote:
           

          Quoting JDKromkowski on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:52:55 -0500:

          ___Jdk___
          PA rep from Pittsburgh, moritz, along with progressives thought the
          16th amendment would broaden the income tax (which prior thereto only
          applied to wages - not interest, divdends, and rent because those
          were considered incidences of property ownership and thus need to
          be apportioned) sufficient to get at unearned rent and the wealthy.
          -----

          Not wages until the Public Employees Tax Act and FICA. It
          applies to the profits of federally chartered corporations.
          Perhaps you're thinking of lawyers fees, which may have
          been considered federal income as some sort of privilege?




          --
          Very truly yours

          John D. Kromkowski
          6803 York Road -- Suite 207
          Baltimore, MD 21212

          Tel     410-377-6248
          Fax     410-372-0624
          Mobile  443-271-0500

          This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.

          If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving  in any manner.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.