A government taxes you, so just move to a different government. Marx and Engels couldn’t solve this problem, nor anybody. You have to use authoritarianism to take over the world, then you can implement you egalitarian ideals. We are moving in the direction of socialism through democracy, but will it be too late?
You take the land in lieu of tax. You serve notice on the property boundaries and to every address in the land registry and that’s that.
I would like to see an economic system not based on land at all. Taking the land, sounds like force. Anyway, some people don’t need land to suck the riches out of nations.
It reminds me of the people who attack communism on the grounds that it could never work while insisting the status quo (capitalism) is the answer to everything. No matter how much you point to the successes of an alternative system (in so far as it was tried) such people still say it didn’t/couldn’t work even though the evidence that it did/could is staring them in the face. As someone is quoted as saying:
They could more easily contemplate the end of the world than the end of capitalism
.
1 Like
I’m not sure what comment you are referring to.
I’ve studied a variety of economic systems and am aware of the good and bad of all of them. I would love a communist system, but it requires a lot of cooperation from the people. Any implemented system of it I’ve seen has a small group of people who claim they are just managing the “commune”, but really they are dictators. Capitalism with democracy has a similar flaw, you need an informed electorate, one that educates itself instead of waiting for authoritarians to fix everything.
The land was taken by force in the first place. They owe back rent, for a thousand years in Britain, to the commons. It should be forfeit immediately.
No force is necessary to take back the land for the commons. Just enforcement. Of social justice. Unless, of course, those in possession of stolen property resist its return.
“ A government taxes you, so just move to a different government. Marx and Engels couldn’t solve this problem”
In China, Hong Kong and Singapore the state owns most land with 99 year lease arrangements to assure that there is suffient public housing provided for thier populations and land use efficacy - avoiding the problems in western economies on the practice of land banking (letting the land sit, left unused or unoccupied and just rise in value from community and state socioeconomic activity. But you wouldn’t call them “ communists” states would you ??
That’s one way of effective town planning . Broad based land tax is just about sharing capital windfall profits back to the community that helped raise the value of that land.
Try and follow the conversation about hiding money and using broad based land tax to overcome this
Why do you find it necessary to add on crap liked “try to follow” to almost every post? Can’t you just say your piece, and keep to the facts and logic?
FYI, using China as an example, kinda doesn’t help make your case.
No force?
Why why why ?? You always sell yourself short
Do I need to explain that China is authoritarian? If you have an example of one of these steady-state egalitarian governments, please, let us know. Maybe I’d move there.
Authoritarian is just a lame buzz word used by laissez faire, Neoliberals when they don’t have an good argument to support their economic beliefs.
I think a broad based land tax is a great tool govt can use to ensure corporations and the rich
are taxed. Singapore hong kong and china shows how its implementation has been relatively successful in capturing unearned income from the rentier class and counter the privatisation of the commons in order to fund projects for the public goods eg affordable housing.
What do you suggest should be done to the reduce inequality and the off shoring of profits though tax havens??
1 Like
Sorry, what’s your point? You appear to be making mine. Thank you.
1 Like
They need registered offices, PO boxes, contracts with third parties on the lands in question, corrupt government. It’s so easy.
[And just seize their landed bank accounts.]
1 Like
Well, I guess we agree on something. I often have trouble figuring out what your point is. It seems your ideas would be “easy” to implement, well, that is, if everyone agreed they were the right thing to do, or at least if the majority, that is all us working stiffs, all agreed, and if we organized ourselves and wrested the power of our nations from the hands of a few elites, then, yep, everything would be great. There are some books on that. It’s not exactly a new idea. I don’t disagree with it, I just see a lot of obstacles to getting there, like populism, immoral police forces, misguided people who think if they buy into the current power structure and support it then they will be happier and safer.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting we all roll over and take the scraps the rich want to give us. CFI is not the only place I spend my time, but when I’m here, I’m supporting their work of getting people to think critically. That’s a key ingredient for a social species that survives best went working communally.
1 Like
Apparently, it’s also easy to set up tax-havens. South Dakota is my neighbor. It doesn’t look like a third-world country that has no other source of income. You don’t see mansions or yachts scattered amongst slums. It looks like giant flat fields and small towns and some nice hunting areas. There is the Corn Palace, but no royalty lives there.
Tax is a federal matter? Justice will out. May be even this millennium!
Eventually these kleptocrats, like the neo-fascist Koch brothers, will have to decamp to Moscow with their stolen billions.
As only you often say.
Aye. More problematic in the US than W. Europe. But bad enough here. Worse in some ways. We’re better at it. It’s far less obvious here. In plain sight nonetheless.
I’m becoming increasingly fearful of America, more than any other power, but I suppose I always should have been. It’s a fragile young democracy. With a gun.
I’ve said every one of those. Some of them since I was 18 or younger. I don’t understand your posts that agree with me on the facts, but imply some other conclusion or something. Since you don’t state your conclusions, just call others wrong, it’s no wonder you don’t make sense.
Nobody I know pretends not to know those things. Nobody. The vast majority don’t, can’t, won’t know them. Some Machiavels know it.
[And some decent sorts, I hasten to add]
You are the ultimate fence sitter and a master of sidestepping rather than foresight