At 11:40 PM 6/11/99 PDT, Raymond G. Van De Walker wrote:
>I favor a single tax on real-estate, because protecting real-estate is
>the only value that I'm certain that only government could create. Also,
>this tax therefore cannot punish consumption by poor people, and only
>punishes relatively well-off land-owners. At the same time, it punishes
>inefficient use of land.
What is the rational behind a tax that punishes anyone? This is just an excuse to cheat, as well as an underhanded way of 'getting even' with those who may be working harder and smarter than the taxman..or 'social enginnering'...
Who defines 'inefficient? McDonald's might define this quite differently from the Sierra Club...
Property taxes IMO are among the most unfair. Retired persons sometimes must sell just because they no longer can afford taxes. Anyone who suffers a financial setback, or an expensive illness or other personal tragedy that interferes with earning potential may also lose their land to the state.
Any tax on property is essentially 'rent' paid to the real owners of the property, the state.
A consumption tax, on the other hand, follows the flow of actual wealth in the economy. Everyone participates in the same portion that they buy anything. Poor perople pay relatively little, wealthy folk pay tons. Even poor people should help run the infrastructure - they are getting benefits from it!
If the tax rate is set high enough to encourage cheating, then the taxing bodies are just not very intelligent. Setting the tax low enough to encourage lots of commerce will ensure that there's never a shortage of taxable transactions.
Forcing govt. powers to live within the limits of the actual economy is just common sense. If the economy sucks, they have no business putting themselves (and the people) even further in debt. Let them live within their means, just as the rest of us must.