If you cut taxes for the rich, they'll invest the money back into the economy and create jobs!

>if you cut taxes for the rich, they'll invest the money back into the economy and create jobs!

Let's say we're back in the 70's and 80's when this retarded argument was gaining traction and we didn't have the data we do today that absolutely proves that trickle-down is bullshit. By a capitalist's logic, greed is inherent to human nature. So with such a lax tax policy, why couldn't they see that the rich would just hoard their money in offshore banks and remove the money from circulation?

I'm not a commie, but can we admit that this is just straight thievery that does fuck all to improve the economy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5EoetIL-MiM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why does the image show a bottle pouring into a glass? Letting someone KEEP money that was already theirs is not the same as giving them money... which the current system does.. it takes money from the middle class and gives it to the elite.

They will raise taxes on the poor instead. The poor own 50% of the world's wealth and are greedily hoarding it away.

"trickle down" isnt really an economic theory. Its language invented by liberals/progressives to attempt to discredit market base economics. Any economist will laugh at you if you bring it up.

>muh trickle down
Retard confirmed, please an hero immediately.

youtube.com/watch?v=5EoetIL-MiM

taxing anything other than land is a fools errand

all your models are wrong

My, he looks awfully Jewish.

Henry George is right

maybe one day you ignorant faggots will get it

...

Taking it away from the middle class and giving it to the elites? How? The wealthiest are getting richer because people who make more money can also save more money, building wealth over time. Things like the estate tax have gone down, even as the chance of going from low-income to high-income has fallen; this means that the slow buildup of wealth by high earners can continue from generation to generation. Also, high earners tend to save more than the middle class, which increases the gap between the rate at which the two groups build wealth -- in other words, it's the middle class that's really driving the economy, not this magical fairy job-creating elite class sitting on a mountain of gold.

Why are you pushing this so hard? You're the only person here posting about land taxation.

there are a multitude of nuances in this discussion that are rarely, if ever, mentioned. here are some big ones.

>personal tax brackets vs. corporate tax rates
>tax planning for international proceeds of US megacorps
>carried interest
>state tax deductions
>estates and intergenerational wealth-transfer

This is usually reduced to a "Laffer curve" type of argument - by BOTH sides of the political UniParty, for a good reason

my nazi friend until you tackle the land monopoly youre just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic

the wealthiest already pay 88% of all income taxes

the bottom half pay almost nothing

did you have somethig else in mind?

do i need a reason more than i think its the best way to tax?

So wait, if he paid taxes the state would furnish him with a house and land?

Because I need to hire more workers in order to get richer, if I don’t hire more workers to grow my business I will stay at the same level of wealth Im at now.
>a consensual transaction between two parties is the same as government compulsion
Lol

>if you cut taxes for the rich, they'll invest the money back into the economy and create jobs!
They do though. Do you think the wealthy just keep billions of dollars in bank accounts? Stop and think for a moment, where are they putting their money? They're investing it. That money becomes capital which grows business, allows people to create new business and does indeed create jobs. Just because it's not immediately and obviously apparent to the average worker that there is an increased flow of capital to help grow business doesn't mean there isn't an effect.

>why couldn't they see that the rich would just hoard their money in offshore banks and remove the money from circulation?

they could, but profitable investments lead to...profits, so "greed" would make them invest.

But there is a difference... Taxation is theft because the Gov't will use force to get the money from you. However rent is not theft because that man isn't allowed to do anything to harm you. He is only allowed to use the legal system.

They don't get paid through income.

point being that land should be held in commons and all of society should get compensated for being excluded from certain places

That's actually a pretty good description of how Keynesian economics and the Federal reserve work, or rather, don't work.

So you can never truly own your land? Thanks comrade, I’ll keep that in mind.

But when we look at the tragedy of the commons we find that no one would respect this land.

Let's be honest here, the top of the very top do not actually pay any taxes, and then when their businesses fail, the tax payers buy them out, ie: middle class

You can have elusive use build a fence and kick any squatter off as long as you pay the lvt

You get to own what you create and nothing more.

The land value tax would replace ALL other forms of taxation. No more income, capital gains, sin tax, property tax ect.

You could have a flat tax rate and the wealthy would still pay the most in taxes

Hardin is himself an advocate of land value taxation, and has criticized misinterpretations of his work with the lament that "The title of my 1968 paper should have been `The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons.'"

In fact, your image in an argument to abolish income taxes for the bottom 80% since it's incredibly inefficient for them to pay taxes in the first place.

>I'm not a commie, but I'm a commie

it is based on the Lockean idea that the right to land is an equal right.

By that I mean: the idea that an individual has "property" in land only to the extent that there is, in the words of John Locke, "enough, and as good left in common for others." In that sense, the right to land is not a collective right, but an individual right that exists independently of the collective (i.e. "society"). The equality of this right is merely a limitation that arises from the presence of others with like rights.

By contrast, a collective right to land dictates that an individual does not have a right to use any land unless society -- either explicitly or by omission -- has granted him the right to do so.

With the equal right to land, one does not require the consent of society to use land. The right to the use of land belongs at birth to each individual. So while the consent of others is not needed, it is, nevertheless, necessary that in the exercise of that right, one does not infringe upon the equal right of others -- i.e., violate Locke's proviso that there be "enough, and as good left in common for others." And since the rental value of land provides an accurate measure of the extent to which said proviso has been violated, "others" should be compensated in accordance with that value. At the same time, of course, all taxes on labor and capital should be abolished, since they violate the exclusive right that each individual has to the fruits of his own labor.

Money is not wealth you stupid fucking cunt, your average 60 IQ welfare big lives a life of luxury that kings and queens of days past couldn't even dream of
>clean water on demand
>cheap food from around the globe
>god damn spices for pennies
>free medical care beyond their comprehension
>all the wonders of electricity

Only a sociopath would rather be king 200 years ago rather than a NEET today, and you can get more with a little elbow grease.

Trickle down economics not only works, it can't NOT work in the absence of government subsidies and regulations. Overarching Government is the problem, lawful greed is good.

The rich don't hoard the money because not reinvesting it will make it devalue with inflation and opportunity cost.

If they want to make the money keep its value or make more they will reinvest it, and if they have businesses that are competing and are a source of income they have to use their wealth to invest in the business.

This is simple economics, if you don't believe that investment of savings into the means of creating capital and wealth don't create more capital and wealth than you have no knowledge of economics.

Tax the distance goods travel through tariffs. Allows for useful people to compete and fuck useless people.

I don’t feel I need to pay for my land over and over again and my children’s children continue to pay as well.

Go tax other shit that isn’t necessary. Luxury goods and the like.

Sorry, being born doesn’t mean life is fair or you get access to what another has. I don’t want nor need the mongrol hordes shitting up the world.

some people "own" the earth, then only some have a right to live upon it.

All individuals must have access to the earth in order to exercise their right to sustain their own lives. Thus, to allow the earth to become the unconditional property of a relative few is to deny this right to everyone else, since it makes the latter obligated at birth to pay the former for mere access to the planet -- as if the former were responsible for the earth’s very existence.

While the private collection of land rent may seem harmless at a micro-level, at a macro-level it constitutes an entitlement scheme, whereby Group A receives payment from Group B, even though Group A renders no service in return. In that sense, it violates the right of the members of Group B to the fruits of their labors.

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Bk 1, Ch. 6

If some people fail to see this, it is because they, in the words of Henry Hazlitt, "overlook the woods in their precise and minute examination of particular trees." In this case they overlook the affect that private rent-collection has on the economy as a whole in their precise and minute examination of particular transactions, and how these transactions benefit particular groups. Overall, the payment of land rent to the few at the expense of the many imposes on the latter artificially high costs of living on one hand, and artificially low wages on the other.

>Karl Marx admitting industrial capitalists take on risk
WHAT FUCKING TIMELINE AM I IN NOW?!

I figure they told us the money would lead to bigger more successful companies and therefore more sjobs and more high payomg jobs.

So I shouldn’t be compensated for working hard and purchasing land to continue making money? You also have this false assumption that landlords do nothing.

They ensure the structures are built and sound. Repairs are conducted. Local laws are respected with such buildings and land owning. And so forth.

Also, since when does being born imply you automatically get a fair share? We aren’t all equal, you seem to think I view shit heads as my equal.

>legal system
Remove yourself from the gene pool.

Trickle down economics work only when you don't outsource your production into third world shitholes. The reason is simple: if your lowest earners don't have enough disposable income, your economy stagnates. If your lowest earners are on welfare because there aren't any manufacturing jobs, and those few are held by illegal immigrants because they are cheaper, then your economy is now eating itself.

Trickle down makes sense if all classes earn much, so they are able to spend their disposable income. If only business owners and upper middle class professionals have good income, it doesn't make any difference on how much they will spend, it never will be nearly enough.

Trickle down economy needs PROTECTIONISM

I don't think he is as much wrong as he is terrible at expressing himself. He is probably close to a minarchist than a commie. It is far from the worst tax scheme I can think of; other than the illusory sense of ownership, can you come up with economic arguments?

land becomes private property when one mixes one's labor with it. And mixing what is yours with what is not yours in order to own the whole thing is considered great sport

So, do the oceans belong to the heirs of the first person to take a fish out or put a boat in? Does someone who plows the same field each year own only one field, while someone who plows a different field each year owns dozens of fields? Should the builder of the first transcontinental railroad own the continent? Shouldn't we at least have to pay a toll to cross the tracks? Are there no common rights to the earth at all? To right wing lp idiots there are not, but classical liberals recognized that unlimited ownership of land never flowed from use, but from the state

you are in fact the stateist leeching wealth from the productive people

Yes. Many items I’ve outright purchased I don’t continue to pay taxes on indefinitely simply because I purchased them. Fine metals being an example. I’m sure earth owner hippie there thinks I should give that away too as it’s finite.

If I want bars and bars of gold I don’t keep paying on them. Because I own them.

Also, if some shit skin family craps out 17 kids to my 1, the assumed fairness doctrine means they get 17 times more land to use than me? Simply because like a five year old they can’t control simple pleasure impulses?

...

Again, how is it leeching wealth if I’m providing something? I’ve given you argument landlords do something. Yet you argue back with railroads. That’s a structure, not land.

No, simplying working a land doesn’t confer ownership. But you’d better believe your ancestors survived to make sure you had enough. Act like it.

You are arguing with an idiot, but he isn't wrong. Landlords would still exist, they would be the tax paying class. Renters would still exist, but their only taxes would be indirect through the landlord.
It's not a great system, but it isn't retarded or anything. The big problem is that it is a scourge on the self-reliant: one must produce to own land.

This should be your primary argument against it.

I’m saying landlords aren’t that if you make taxes due indefinitely. You’re just a tax collector of a certain sector for the government at that point.

He continues to argue that if you fuck to your jearts content your 7,000 kids should all be treated fairly and given things. Being born affords you nothing.

Why do you assume he wants to give people land for free? They would have to be productive enough to afford the tax; obviously he doesn't envision this within a welfare state.
Also land is a very different good than trinkets and widgets; people must occupy space and by extension require it to produce. I don't want to argue over how different it is, but I assume you can agree that it is different.

My main criticism of his idea is that it is destructive towards the self reliant, forcing them to produce in order to be "left alone". This should be enough, but can you come up with another criticism?

Please show me where he implied that everyone shares the land equally. As far as I know he has simply said that "ownership" of land must be taxed which directly implies no one gets free land.

I know he is an idiot, but you are being very uncharitable in your interpretation of his view

I’ve pointed to the fact owning precious resources is no different. If I hoarded ownership of all rare metals, society would be screwed.

My point is it’s a slippery slope. Land first. The valuable items. Then what? My shirt? What’s to stop the government or society’s greed after a taste of free money?

I’ve pointed to the fact owning precious resources is no different. If I hoarded ownership of all rare metals, society would be screwed.

My point is it’s a slippery slope. Land first. The valuable items. Then what? My shirt? What’s to stop the government or society’s greed after a taste of free money?

As I just said, his view is a slippery slope to taxing my shoes.

To liken his view of taking from others is like an alcoholic - one is just never enough.

I’ve pointed to the fact owning precious resources is no different. If I hoarded ownership of all rare metals, society would be screwed.

My point is it’s a slippery slope. Land first. The valuable items. Then what? My shirt? What’s to stop the government or society’s greed after a taste of free money?

As I just said, his view is a slippery slope to taxing my shoes.

To liken his view of taking from others is like an alcoholic - one is just never enough.

I like this idea. As a wagecuck I'm taxed to fuck and live in a cuckshed, meanwhile cuckerberg doesn't pay taxes and owns half of hawaii and 100 acres in california.

slippery slope? No way! The LVT would replace all other taxes. The rental value of land is more than enough to sustain a government nothing else would be needed.

under a single tax system the majority of the bill would be paid by urban land owners since that is where the value is

a small subsistence farmer would pay virtually nothing in LVT and would also benefit by no longer getting taxed on improvements hes made to his small homestead or capital hes managed to invest

it would also control the urban sprawl that drives up the prices of rural land

But you are fucking wrong, you can't eat precious metals and, again, one must occupy space and eat things which occupy space. I REALLY don't want to get into this, and would like to discuss the rest of my previous post.

If you can accept that an acre of land is infinitely more valuable than an ounce of gold, regardless of each of their nominal values, we can't continue this. Relying on slippery slope arguments (...twice) is retarded because we aren't really doing anything, we are speaking of ideology. Focus:
>how is his ideology bad other than "it could get worse in ways totally disconnected from the presented idea"?
His idea is you ONLY TAX LAND, so you can't imagine up other taxes to dismiss it without fundamentally abusing his presented ideas.

Read Marx, most of his solutions are shit but what he says is still interesting.

You are doing it again. His presented idea is you ONLY TAX LAND. If you dream up more taxes you are fundamentally abusing his presented ideas and are no longer offering an argument against him, but against yourself.

Sorry, my internet is fucking up and I thought my post failed.

>Having a free economy makes you poor and the rich richer
>But taxing you to the point of making economic activity impossible, and importing people to suppress your wages, so that the only people who can make any money are the people who were already in buisness- that's going to make everything better
OP is a faggot.

pic related is the only way to dodge a land tax

For me, it’s happen as a small business owner. We get tax raped yearly with few opportunities for breaks, and that’s why I can’t bring on the 2 new hires I could desperately use this year. Instead, I’ll work 14-15 your days and pay myself more instead, if the government wants to deter me from hiring, then the money stays with me.

Trust me, I’d rather hire, but the taxation on small business is fucked.

we don't even have to be in the 70s or 80s for this shit to be happening, its done now,

what the fuck were the bank and auto bailouts? and even now, the FED is pumping money monthly into wall street and that's their idea of fixing the economy.

so not only does it not work, we know it doesn't work yet still do it to this fucking day.

>be top 20% of white men
>pay for 90% of the government
>money goes to making more single moms and vagrants increasing inequality
>that justifies more taxes on you
but muh trickle down

Trickle down economics actually does work, have you seen the explosion of industrialisation in the third world?

You ignorant sod. This is not even an actual economic theory. Taxation is acceptable to those of us who actually pay, provided that the revenue is wisely and judiciously used. However, this is not the case. Instead of providing for defense, infrastructure and other necessary federal functions, that money is squandered on shiftless members of society in exchange for reliable voting. Now that literally half the country has bought into the concept of entitlement by virtue of existence, we are completely FUBAR as the masses are near the point of being able to simply vote themselves more stuff on the backs of those who work/produce. Wealth is accumulated by investment and work. The spoiled heirs usually blow the money within 2 generations. This has been true, for the most part, throughout history.

Let's say we're back in the 80s when this supposed "retarded idea" actually did work and the economy grew at an unprecedented rate that continued even after libshit commies started to fuck it up in the 90s, by importing diversity, large corporate take overs, and driving wages down. Let's say you weren't even alive then, so what the fuck do you know?

Idiot detected. The top 20% are comprised mostly of W2 workers (people who earn money from actual work). Only 0.1 earn the majority of their income passively.

....aaannnd the cost will be passed on the the users of the land. Owners never bear the burden of increased taxes, it is always the consumer in the end.

Trickle down isn't a real thing that exists you brainwashed marxist faggot.

the reason everything is shit is central banking.

Reganomics is retarded, time has already proven it's a scam.

>2 posts by thisIP
sage goes into Options

Trickle down is a leftist term.
Look up laffer curves, my dude.

yes it is lmao. It's just a valid theory of economics as trickle-up. Both are perfectly reasonable theories, and both are applied successfully in real life.

Also the picture you show is literally because of computerization and autmation as well as the emerging economies in china and india.

People on this board are just sometimes mindblowingly stupid.

Regardless of how you parse this, the LVT solves nothing. All costs will be passed down as far as possible, directly to the user of the land. If the LVT replaces all taxes, what happens when the government burns through all of that revenue, as it inevitably will? Yes, your shoes and shit will eventually be taxed in some form.

>anarcho-communism

Who will redistribute the wealth?

>yes it is lmao.
No it's not.
It's a leftist strawman argument.

>It's just a valid theory of economics as trickle-up.
There is no actual economic theory called trickle down.
It's LEGIT a leftist strawman argument.
Kill yourself.

>Also the picture you show is literally because of computerization and autmation as well as the emerging economies in china and india.
No, central banks eroding the purchasing power of our money.

How can I reconcile the clear logic of Georgism with my disdain for Mugabe and likewise land grabbers?

there is no bottle you retard, people generate wealth through their labour, it doesn't fall magically from the sky.

>if we decrease taxes on the rich they'll still hoard their money in offshore banks

>let's increase taxes on the rich to punish those who don't hoard their money in offshore banks

???

If you tax the rich, they'll take themselves and their money somewhere that doesn't, leaving you with less than what tou would get for taxing them less. You don't seem to realize they have the chips here and can walk away from bad deals at basically any time.

>Any economist will laugh at you if you bring it up
memecaps pls go

ALL THE TAX GOES TO PAY THE FEDERAL RESERVE INTEREST RATES ANYWAYS

IT MEANS NOTHING. NONE OF OUR MONEY EVEN GOES INTO THE STREETS OR MILITARY OR SCHOOLS. ITS THE MONEY THEY BORROW AFTER PUTTING OUR TAXES INTO THE FED.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS LITERALLY JEW CANCER.

Dumbest meme ever.

You are claiming the state government is the owner of the land. They are not the owners, only the holders. It is public land.

On the other hand, the private property is owned by someone, in which he can do as he wishes, which includes renting it to someone else for equal consideration.

You spent too long in the state schooling system, it would seem..

You're furnished with a police force, healthcare, a legal system, and internationally-upheld citizenship+travel rights.

Now plot a graph of the impact of the taxes each group pays on their ability to feed, house and clothe themselves.