Land Tax Gaining (Some) Political Space In Britain

[Injin]

Without land ownership and planning, people could build anywhere, including in your back garden.

It isnt your back garden, fantasist.

That's fine, but many people would rather pay some tax, to avoid this inconvenience, as long as the taxation system keeps the rental value of the land to a minimum.

And that's fine they can want a fantasy world where tax will work out great and not cause misery all day long but tough shit, it's not an option that's on the table.

Yes, I know, tax is theft, we're all slaves, etc...

And also doesn't work.

What is the penality for ignoring the will of mighty traktion, btw?

You can't have what you want. This system will never work. It's not an option, forget about it.

[Tired of Waiting]

(...)

Show me a tax system that has reduced without serious civil disturbance/civil war/economic collapse and I shall award you Injins' golden frog of honour.

Governments share of GDPs. Pretty constant, sometimes reducing:

(Not the ideal data in this, but I can't look for one now, I have to work, I have people here now. Sorry.)

Edited September 23, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Injin]

Governments share of GDPs. Pretty constant, sometimes reducing:

Can't see the image.

GDP is meaningless, btw.

[exiges]

First off I have a problem with the term "Mansion" tax, it's an emotive term designed to get the masses' on-side against the toffs.

Today, a mansion in the true sense of the word would cost a good £4-5m in you average area.. whereas the proposed tax is on properties over £1m, which in some parts of the country doesn't get you very much at all, and certainly not a mansion.

So that's the nomenclature out of the way, now onto the practice.

What's going to happen to any property over £1m ? A house worth say £1.5m ? People are going to be putting offers in for £999,999..

That's good for HPCers, but no good for the government as they'll earn the square root of feck all from the tax (and earn less in stamp duty too)

[Traktion]

It isnt your back garden, fantasist.

In the current eyes of the law, it is. You can consider the law, the government, countries etc all fantasies too, but this is the system we currently live with.

And that's fine they can want a fantasy world where tax will work out great and not cause misery all day long but tough shit, it's not an option that's on the table.

And also doesn't work.

It's strange then, that most of the world operates such a system. I suppose none of them 'work' either and all are equally bad and evil?

What is the penality for ignoring the will of mighty traktion, btw?

Jail time, threats of violence, waving guns etc. Ofc, it is the will of the majority, not of just me, but it loses some of the drama then, doesn't it?

You can't have what you want. This system will never work. It's not an option, forget about it.

To summarise, we can't have anarchy because we're not ready for it, but we can't have a state because they don't work.

What's your third way then?

[exiges]

It is not that much (50% paid by 1or2%).

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf

The top 1% pay 26.7% of all income tax. (Up from 22% 10yrs ago)

The top 5% pay 45.5% (up from 39.6)

As far as I'm concerned they're certainly doing their bit

Edited September 23, 2010 by exiges

[Injin]

In the current eyes of the law, it is. You can consider the law, the government, countries etc all fantasies too, but this is the system we currently live with.

Whether they are or aren't fantasies is a matter of fact. Mass opinion doesn't change facts.

It's strange then, that most of the world operates such a system. I suppose none of them 'work' either and all are equally bad and evil?

Well done! noticed the current economic collapse lately?

Jail time, threats of violence, waving guns etc. Ofc, it is the will of the majority, not of just me, but it loses some of the drama then, doesn't it?

Nope.

To summarise, we can't have anarchy because we're not ready for it, but we can't have a state because they don't work.

What's your third way then?

There isn't one. You and folks like you will piss about for the orseeable future trying to make the state work, things will get worse and worse and then eventually you'll give up.

All i am saying is give up early, join the anarchy free marketeers with the right answer and beat the rush. Might nto happen ofc, the state bandwagon might be ridden all the way to extinction but I am hoping not. Nukes and such do leave that option on the table.....

[Traktion]

Well done! noticed the current economic collapse lately?

False dichotomy.

There isn't one. You and folks like you will piss about for the orseeable future trying to make the state work, things will get worse and worse and then eventually you'll give up.

All i am saying is give up early, join the anarchy free marketeers with the right answer and beat the rush. Might nto happen ofc, the state bandwagon might be ridden all the way to extinction but I am hoping not. Nukes and such do leave that option on the table.....

The current state may collapse, but then we will just get new ones to replace them. I fail to see how we can be ready for peaceful anarchy, when such a collapse forces desperate people to arms; the starting point will be tainted by the previous collapse.

If you want to live in a world of peace, will little/no state interference, the only way I can see it happening is by talking ourselves down from the current position. Ripping it up and starting again will just kick start another cycle.

If collapse is unavoidable, then it will happen anyway. In the mean time, we may as well try to fix the problems, rather that just saying "f*ck it, let's start again".

[Injin]

False dichotomy.

If you point to a load of failures as evidence of success i'm goint o point that out.

Facts rock, you know!

The current state may collapse, but then we will just get new ones to replace them. I fail to see how we can be ready for peaceful anarchy, when such a collapse forces desperate people to arms; the starting point will be tainted by the previous collapse.

of course. 95%+ of the population have been mindraped into thinking that extortion is the right way to solve social problems. We are SO ******ed right about now it's almost comical.

If you want to live in a world of peace, will little/no state interference, the only way I can see it happening is by talking ourselves down from the current position. Ripping it up and starting again will just kick start another cycle.

Oh no. Addicitions don't work that way, including the addicition to externalising anxiety via the state. The patient has to hit bottom and seek help.

If collapse is unavoidable, then it will happen anyway. In the mean time, we may as well try to fix the problems, rather that just saying "f*ck it, let's start again".

You can't fix the problems.

Even if by some mirackle you found the right answer, no one cares. They don't do rationality, youmust have noticed by now. I'm on here throwing out a flag to the likeminded and amusing myself. Theres zero chance anything I type will make any differnce to anything whatsoever, certainly not to the opinions of anyone in the state. It's the same for you.

So why not just stick with the truth?

It's not like you are engaged in negotiation here, just irrelevent discussion at the **** end of the internet.

[Tired of Waiting]

Can't see the image.

Try reloading the page, usually it works for me.

GDP is meaningless, btw.

No it's not. Come on.

Another one:

Taxes in the USA have been basically the same since about 1950:

Edited September 23, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Injin]

Try reloading the page, usually it works for me.

Did, doesnt.

No it's not. Come on.

GDP includes stuff like government department transfers, it's a crock. let's live with it for now though as that;' a different argument.

Another one:

Taxes in the USA have been basically the same since about 1950:

..because government borrowing isn't.

[Traktion]

If you point to a load of failures as evidence of success i'm goint o point that out.

Facts rock, you know!

There are winners and losers from this episode.

of course. 95%+ of the population have been mindraped into thinking that extortion is the right way to solve social problems. We are SO ******ed right about now it's almost comical.

Some problems are just easier to resolve with democracy. Too much of it, and you have mod rule.

You see things very much in black and white. That's fine, but most people don't.

Oh no. Addicitions don't work that way, including the addicition to externalising anxiety via the state. The patient has to hit bottom and seek help.

You can't fix the problems.

You want to switch off life support, let the patient die with a phoenix rising from the ashes. Others are trying to suggest medicine to help the patient recover. You think the medicine won't work, but others are unconvinced. Time will tell who is right and whether it was worth trying.

Even if by some mirackle you found the right answer, no one cares. They don't do rationality, youmust have noticed by now. I'm on here throwing out a flag to the likeminded and amusing myself. Theres zero chance anything I type will make any differnce to anything whatsoever, certainly not to the opinions of anyone in the state. It's the same for you.

So why not just stick with the truth?

It's not like you are engaged in negotiation here, just irrelevent discussion at the **** end of the internet.

I'm here because I want to understand and share my thought with others. Even if no useful soul reads one jot of it, I will have digested, rationalised and offered solutions to the problems - that gives me comfort. To know there may be a solution is half way to implementing it.

I know you're a cynical chap. I know you think it's all pointless debating it and it's all going to come down anyway. I would like to think that you are offering people mental preparation for this, if it happens, along with a POV which they may not have considered. I can't think why else you would spend so much time here discussing it.

If, as I suspect, people do read this forum and discuss its content and debates with others, then every word written here has a subtle effect. Much of it may be ignored, go unseen, be resigned to the scrap book of time, but nuggets will get through. This is the power of the Internet, allowing the sharing of knowledge and opinion. I still have some faith left that people can change, as can the system. In short, I try not to be cynical for the sake of it.

[Injin]

There are winners and losers from this episode.{/wuote]

not if you were to ask Bastiat.

Some problems are just easier to resolve with democracy. Too much of it, and you have mod rule.

You see things very much in black and white. That's fine, but most people don't.

Things ARE black and white. Opinions don't change this.

You want to switch off life support, let the patient die with a phoenix rising from the ashes.

No, I don't. I'd love a gradual transition to something saner, but it simply isn't happening and I have to recognise that.

Others are trying to suggest medicine to help the patient recover. You think the medicine won't work, but others are unconvinced. Time will tell who is right and whether it was worth trying.

The effort will fail, it always has so far. You are talking lottery winning, black swan stuff.

I'm here because I want to understand and share my thought with others. Even if no useful soul reads one jot of it, I will have digested, rationalised and offered solutions to the problems - that gives me comfort. To know there may be a solution is half way to implementing it.

And to know that there is no solution is to accept reality.

I know you're a cynical chap. I know you think it's all pointless debating it and it's all going to come down anyway. I would like to think that you are offering people mental preparation for this, if it happens, along with a POV which they may not have considered. I can't think why else you would spend so much time here discussing it.

That's the idea, yes indeedy. When the balooon goes up, those whpo predicted it *might* get listened to more.

If, as I suspect, people do read this forum and discuss its content and debates with others, then every word written here has a subtle effect. Much of it may be ignored, go unseen, be resigned to the scrap book of time, but nuggets will get through. This is the power of the Internet, allowing the sharing of knowledge and opinion. I still have some faith left that people can change, as can the system. In short, I try not to be cynical for the sake of it.

I agree, but there won't be the widespread acceptance of reality until after TSHTF. No harm in recognising it.

[bogbrush]

All I'd say is that when - as is most likely - a new state based currency political whatever system is built up and looks like it's working, that doesn't mean it will be sustainable.

My view is that Injins logic is strong; I don't se how 1% tax is any different from 99%; the same principles of compulsion and externalisation apply. It's like saying a woman who will only sleep with a man for £1m isn't as much a prostitute and the one hanging around the street every evening.

If the system fails now then resetting it at new numbers will only lead the same way. As he says, if we can be shown a state which makes lasting reverses in "take" then maybe it's time to think again, but it can't be done and talking about % of GDP is rubbish.

I don't know how to fix all this but I do know what tinkering looks like.

[Tired of Waiting]

All I'd say is that when - as is most likely - a new state based currency political whatever system is built up and looks like it's working, that doesn't mean it will be sustainable.

My view is that Injins logic is strong; I don't se how 1% tax is any different from 99%; the same principles of compulsion and externalisation apply. It's like saying a woman who will only sleep with a man for £1m isn't as much a prostitute and the one hanging around the street every evening.

If the system fails now then resetting it at new numbers will only lead the same way. As he says, if we can be shown a state which makes lasting reverses in "take" then maybe it's time to think again, but it can't be done and talking about % of GDP is rubbish.

I don't know how to fix all this but I do know what tinkering looks like.

We were talking about total tax levels (if a property tax would increase total tax levels), and the best way to measure total tax levels is as % of GDP.

About you not "se how 1% tax is any different from 99%"... that is just weird. I don't believe you are being serious.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Injin]

We were talking about total tax levels (if a property tax would increase total tax levels), and the best way to measure total tax levels is as % of GDP.

About you not "se how 1% tax is any different from 99%"... that is just weird. I don't believe you are being serious.

You've got around the problem of gradually increasing taxation levels the same way the state has - by completely ignoring the borrowing done to avoid tax rises.

So instead of a gradual 1% increase per year, theres a flat graph ...and then a complete state failure as the tax rate has to go to 150% of everything made to repay and the politicla fallout nukes the whole system.

[Tired of Waiting]

You've got around the problem of gradually increasing taxation levels the same way the state has - by completely ignoring the borrowing done to avoid tax rises.

Mainly Britain, mainly in the past 7 years, then yes, I agree. Not all countries, all the time. And we'll have to pay it back now.

Taxes as a share of GDP have always oscillated around 40-50% of GDP, in most developed countries, most of the time, in the post-war period.

So instead of a gradual 1% increase per year, theres a flat graph ...and then a complete state failure as the tax rate has to go to 150% of everything made to repay and the politicla fallout nukes the whole system.

Sorry, I lost you there.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Injin]

Mainly Britain, mainly in the past 7 years, then yes, I agree. Not all countries, all the time. And we'll have to pay it back now.

Taxes as a share of GDP have always oscillated around 40-50% of GDP, in most developed countries, most of the time, in the post-war period.

...because the western states have been borrowing.

Sorry, I lost you there.

They didn't increase taxes, they increased borrowing instead. That is, they increased taxes, but delayed collection of and payment to for a while.

The size of the state increased by leaps and bounds.

Analogy time!

There is this deadbeat who always spends all of his money on hookers and blow. I point out he does this increasingly until either he has an overdose or all his income is gone. You say I am wrong because he's actually put the hookers and blow on his ever increasing credit card limit and only spends his income servicing the interest. See how retarded your position is now?

What happens when the statists borrow is that eventually all the tax take is taken up by interest payments and then the state collapses.

[Tired of Waiting]

...because the western states have been borrowing.

Actually, instead of "western" and "states", until a few years ago it was mainly the American and British households.

But uncontrolled by the monetary authorities in these 2 countries. So, indirectly, you are partially right.

Now both governments are indeed increasing government borrowing massively, mostly since the financial crisis.

They didn't increase taxes, they increased borrowing instead. That is, they increased taxes, but delayed collection of and payment to for a while.

The size of the state increased by leaps and bounds.

Analogy time!

There is this deadbeat who always spends all of his money on hookers and blow. I point out he does this increasingly until either he has an overdose or all his income is gone. You say I am wrong because he's actually put the hookers and blow on his ever increasing credit card limit and only spends his income servicing the interest.

You are confusing localised and temporal phenomena with global and eternal. Try to notice place and time in this chart:

As I wrote above, mainly Britain, and mainly in these past years.

See how retarded your position is now?

Not mine. Sorry.

What happens when the statists borrow is that eventually all the tax take is taken up by interest payments and then the state collapses.

[Injin]

Actually, instead of "western" and "states", until a few years ago it was mainly the American and British households.

But uncontrolled by the monetary authorities in these 2 countries. So, indirectly, you are partially right.

Now both governments are indeed increasing government borrowing massively, mostly since the financial crisis.

People borrowed to maintain their lifestyles in the face of the encroaching state, it's many regulations and the inflation it causes.

You are confusing localised and temporal phenomena with global and eternal.

No, there is no seperate realm where things that don't work on a small scale magically do on a large scale. If you get one man to jump off a cliff, flapping his arms, he will plunge to his death. if you get a 100 to do it at the same time, they will fall to their deaths.

The rules dont change if you scale up.

You are mistaking the ability of the state to externalise it's costs for the ability to not have them.

How can it continue?

Show me how.

I'm glad you now agree that the state has gotten larger and larger, and that taxation always increases to the point of failure though. Thanks for that.

[bogbrush]

We were talking about total tax levels (if a property tax would increase total tax levels), and the best way to measure total tax levels is as % of GDP.

About you not "se how 1% tax is any different from 99%"... that is just weird. I don't believe you are being serious.

Well total means pounds and % of GDP is a frigged up number that means nothing.

1% is no different from 99% in principle. Tell me what you think the difference is (apart from 98%, which is just detail).

[Orsino]

A Land Tax would be a great disincentive to own second homes that is left empty for much of the time - a gross inefficiency in a country of limited housing stock. Owners would pay for their use of land and property rather than receive a discount on public services they rarely use. I know of several parts of the South West where they'd dance in the street if that was introduced.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Orsino

[Tired of Waiting]

(...)

1% is no different from 99% in principle. Tell me what you think the difference is (apart from 98%, which is just detail).

Legitimacy.

[Tired of Waiting]

People borrowed to maintain their lifestyles in the face of the encroaching state, it's many regulations and the inflation it causes.

No, there is no seperate realm where things that don't work on a small scale magically do on a large scale. If you get one man to jump off a cliff, flapping his arms, he will plunge to his death. if you get a 100 to do it at the same time, they will fall to their deaths.

The rules dont change if you scale up.

You are mistaking the ability of the state to externalise it's costs for the ability to not have them.

How can it continue?

Show me how.

I'm glad you now agree that the state has gotten larger and larger, and that taxation always increases to the point of failure though. Thanks for that.

Have you managed to see the 2 charts I had posted above? Re. gov. share of GDP?

If not, Google about it. In any country. You will see that the state share goes up and down. It is not a continuously growing share. Even Sweden, one of the biggest states, shrank in the past decade. They are less social democrat now, migrating more to the centre.

I agree that in Britain today the gov. share is too high. I would prefer a small state. And like I told you before, in essential areas, such as health and education, I would prefer the voucher system, Dutch style.

[Injin]

Have you managed to see the 2 charts I had posted above? Re. gov. share of GDP?

If not, Google about it. In any country. You will see that the state share goes up and down. It is not a continuously growing share. Even Sweden, one of the biggest states, shrank in the past decade. They are less social democrat now, migrating more to the centre.

As already noted, GDP is bobbins.

I agree that in Britain today the gov. share is too high. I would prefer a small state. And like I told you before, in essential areas, such as health and education, I would prefer the voucher system, Dutch style.

Not relevent to anything whatsoever.

Certainly has sod all to do with refuting the principle that the state always advances until either social/economic collapse.