Your point is relevant to that context sure, but we’re a long way from those circumstances. To justify bad government using 10,000 year ago survival is folly.
Discussion
Justifying bad government? Jungle law existing only with a total lack of government...
We have government. Justifying awful regressive governance by inciting the premises of jungle law doesn’t make the governance justified. I’m not sure we’re on the same page and that’s ok. ❤️
Regressive tax is terrible for a society, I think we can agree. Sasha just asked for an example of regressive tax, and this is what popped in my mind. Jungle law leads to brutal and savage outcomes, not something any sane person would desire. Personally, I believe best tax structure is probably a progressive land tax as that would put the burden on the backs of Ted Turner and Bill Gates (largest US land holders), and stop large scale real estate speculation.
Exactly! 💯 Even sales tax is reasonable IMO, but income tax? Nope. We need to incentivize productivity.
nah it really wouldn't. what would stop real estate speculation is abolition of the Fed and recognition of the criminal nature of the banking cartel and its endless money printing as counterfeiting.
adding a tax on top of property will just wind up driving small landowners off their property because they can't afford the good accountants and lawyers.
every single law ever made to "tax the rich" ends up taking from the poor, without exception.
While I agree that land ownership is not the appropriate metric for measuring wealth as it was before the Industrial Revolution, land ownership and real estate speculation are two different things. The fractional reserve banking system relies on ever increasing consumer loans and debt. To be sustainable, loans must be made with increasing risk to people who aren’t qualified for the borrowed amount. The thirty year mortgage is the perfect vehicle for this inflated value as the bank gets real property collateral and has leverage as most people are borrowing for what is their family’s primary residence. After acquisition, the county, state, and city get their hands in your pockets too, asking for levy payments for public services and taxes. It’s a recipe to have all your earnings tied up in a home you can’t sell because you have to have a place to live. Meanwhile alternative housing is made unlawful, forcing those who cannot afford the price of admission into rental from wealthy landlords, where earnings are drained away without any gain in equity. I don’t know what the answer is, but the solution is not simple. In some ways I think a flat tax makes sense, but simple tax code and absolute enforcement is probably a good start. I know many very wealthy people and none of them pay a proportional tax burden to the working class people I know.
💯 solutions I’ve thought of (but have not investigated enough to fully validated)
- get rid of all 5013c tax benefits (nothing that exists in the fiat system is non-profit).
-TIN must be thought of more as an “individual” meaning it has to exist in the same taxation structure. So this would involve either moving individuals (SSNs) over to the same balance sheet treatment or vice versa.
Just a few ideas.
I like both of those ideas. Non profits along with foundations and trusts are tax evading vehicles primarily, but with unreasonable taxation a person has to do something to avoid being fleeced. We need reasonable taxes that are universally effective.
Wouldn’t that also put the biggest tax burden on the US government if we base it on land? Land ownership should be incentivized, not punished, especially if it’s being maintained in a manner that benefits all stakeholders. With that said, perhaps an anti-trust perspective from regulators could be helpful. I also despise tax credits, so not sure how this can be implemented. Either way, land ownership is what makes America America, and there’s a certain point where someone has to act as government, just by design, after amassing such a huge quantity. So not sure if this is good or bad for citizens in the long-run. Definitely something to think about 💭
Regressive tax policy takes money from those least able to pay, and exempts those who are most able. Everyone talks about California tax policy negatively and admittedly it has problems, but it is progressive.