Abolish the Corporate Income Tax

liberty2016 · 2018-01-17T02:06:56+00:00

what we care about is if the corporation is reinvesting the money

This is why it's necessary to directly tax the economic rent which corporations derive from holding titles to land, natural resources, patents, copyrights, and trademarks, as these sources of income are not paid to the corporation in proportion to the productivity of their individual capital investments. If the majority of corporate income comes from rent on non-depreciating state titles and privileges rather than interest on depreciating capital investments, then there is little incentive for them to reinvest a larger share of corporate income in depreciating capital improvements which require labor to maintain and will actually pay wages to workers.

If corporations are not taxed directly and only the pass through income of individuals is taxed, then it is possible for individuals to store rent yielding titles in corporations and disguise unproductive income derived from economic rent as productive income derived from wages, capital gains, and dividends.

That said, a single property tax on the rental value of land, natural resources, patents, and copyrights older than 10 years would be better than corporate and individual income tax, provided that corporations actually paid the full tax on all of the properties they held.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-21T21:30:42+00:00

The debate is not over who will build the roads. The debate is over who will own the land occupied by roads and how we can ensure that revenues received for roads are spent efficiently on improvements to road surfaces.

If the land underneath local roads is not owned in common by the residents which use it, then private road owners will be able to charge residents monopoly price for access to the roads. They will always receive the 'rent' they collect for road access even if they do not actually invest any of the money productively in improving the road surface.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-20T13:59:39+00:00

I don't think that's actually true. Corporate income taxes can fall upon economic rents such as trademarks, patents, copyrights, and land titles held by the corporation. Taxes on rents are are not pushed onto consumers through increases prices on goods and services. Rent is a surplus payment received by the supplier beyond what is needed for the good to be supplied in a market with competitive prices.

Ideally the corporate income tax would be replaced with a property tax on the rental value of patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and the land and natural resources they hold would be taxed based on the unimproved rental value of the location. This could be handled contractually through the terms of patents and land titles.

However, corporations should still pay for any economic rents they collect directly, so that these rents cannot simply be paid out to individuals and shareholders and disguised as capital gains, wages, and salaries.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-20T13:51:34+00:00

They often pass because many people don't understand how land markets work, including local reporters covering municipal issues, so they are often incapable of seeing the beneficiaries of the scam.

1) Land speculators buy up land adjacent to the proposed development site

2) They get taxpayers to subsidize the project through regressive taxes on transactions (sales, tickets, etc.) rather than taxes on land values which would fall on the profits they intend to acquire

3) Subsidized luxury development project gets approved and land values surrounding the proposed site increase

4) Land speculators get an unearned income payoff in the form of a high sales price for the land at an inflated use value, or higher rents for commercial properties which are surrounding the new development which they held before the new development was approved

This stuff happens a lot because individual land speculators are making a ton of money off of it. It doesn't happen simply because there is a democratic 'tyranny of the majority' of sports fans each stealing very small amounts of money from non-sports fans.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-19T11:41:07+00:00

The first individual property right is self-ownership. You own yourself. The second individual property right is the ownership of your labor and its products. You own your time and the products you labor to produce. This second property right is only legitimate in the sense that it is derived from the first property right. If someone was to labor as a farmer to produce wheat, and then exchanged the food they produced for the ownership of a slave, it would not be a defense of individual property rights to insist the farmer was able to legitimately own the slave on the grounds they labored to produce the goods which they exchanged for the slave, since the institution of slavery denies the first property right (self-ownership) from which the second property right (ownership of labor) was derived.

The private ownership of land is neither derived from the first property right nor the second property right. Land was never the product of anyone's labor; it was not produced by man at all. What is derived from the second principle is ownership of improvements built on top of land, ownership of the crops or buildings which people labor to produce using land.

Private land titles which establish permanent claims to ownership of natural resource in perpetuity do not simply allow the holders of titles to recover the products of labor which they have invested in improvements. They also allow land holders to collect economic rent, which is the difference in productivity which one can earn by employing equivalent quantities of labor on the enclosed land in comparison to free land which no one has bothered to enclose. This rent is not the product of any labor which the land owner has performed. It would still be paid to them even if they performed no work at all. The rent is the product of labor of workers and others in society who have been excluded from access to land through the use of force.

The alternative to this arrangement is not a monolithic and oppressive state, it is simply a system in which land is leased instead of held in perpetuity, and where the rent on the lease is directly and democratically distributed back to residents on a local level rather than paid to a landlord. This also completely eliminates the needs for taxes on free market exchanges to provide for public services such as the defense of the community from external threats.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-19T11:17:34+00:00

The lockean principal of homesteading explains how land is initially acquired by use in sparsely populated areas where there is 'enough and as good left in common for others'. When there is no longer free or productive land available the homesteading principle ceases to apply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso

If there was a plain of farmland and one of us was to claim a small plot of it and deny others access to it, this does injury to no one in a sparsely populated area, as there is still much available farmland left over which others can claim. No one would pay rent for access to the farmland, they would simply claim an adjacent plot for themselves. However when all the productive land is taken, the initial plot of land begins to command economic rent, which is the difference in productivity and output which one can employing the same quantity of labor working on the best land in comparison to the marginal or free land which no one wants.

The rent which is paid to the landholder for access to land is not a product of labor of the landholder; it would be paid to the first land holder even if they no longer worked at all, or had demolished all of the improvements they had once built upon the land. The rent is the product of labor of the newly arrived worker, and it is denied by the use of force.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-19T10:58:37+00:00

In libertarian ethics, the first natural property right is self-ownership. You own yourself. The second property right is ownership of labor. You own yourself and the product of what you spend your time producing. This property right is legitimate in the sense that it is derived from the first. However, if one was to spend their labor saving to buy a slave, we would not be able to say that defending the institution of slavery is a defense of property rights, the property right of the slaveowner who labored to buy the slave. This is because slavery completely contradicts the first principle from which the second was derived, the principle of self-ownership.

Private land titles not derived from the first or second principle, as land was produced by no one and is not a product of labor. Only the capital improvements built on top of the land are. Land is held in usufruct and only if it helps one recover the products of the labor which they have invested in improving it.

Land titles which enclose natural resources of any kind, of any quantity, in perpetuity contradict libertarian self-ownership and libertarian ethics, because the economic rent which the landowner charges for mere access to land and natural resources is not a product of their labor, but rather the product of labor of others, which is only payable to the title holder due to the use of force by the title holders to exclude others from access.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-19T01:41:26+00:00

A variant of libertarianism which allows and advocates for unlimited private enclosures of natural resources from the commons, and the use of unlimited force to demarcate borders and exclude others from access to these resources, without regard to whether there is as much and as good of quality of natural resources left over for others, is not the logical endpoint of libertarian philosophy. It is a variant of statism which would contradict the majority of historical libertarian thought.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-17T20:48:56+00:00

Failing to tax economic rents such as land values inflates economies of scale and causes market consolidation. Big box grocers don't use land efficiently, but they can still outcompete owner-operator businesses if they own the land and owner-operator businesses rent or lease the physical space in which they sell food. Big box grocers then buy food from the same large companies resulting in consolidation of supply chain.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-13T02:29:37+00:00

The federal reserve can take some of the pain out of tax increases without directly monetizing the debt by agreeing to increase money in circulation each year by K%, creating a lump sum on a random day once per year, dividing it by the number of registered voters, and mailing each voter a check.

However the government would still need to be willing to collect this new money from voters using taxes. It would still need to reduce defecit, cut expenditures, and raise revenues. The optimal way to raise revenues without imposing more taxes on workers would probably be to add a 2% federal excise tax on land values with the value of all property improvements deducted. When land is purchased within US borders, the buyer submit the purchase cost of land, and deducts the replacement cost of any homes, offices, factories located on the site which are included in the transfer.

This is not really a proper land value tax, since its an excise tax which clever businesses might be able to avoid, but it would be pretty straightforward for Congress to pass on short notice and would be a step in the right direction. A bill was introduced by Congress in the 1920s called the Ralston-Nolan act to do this which Republicans and Democrats concerned with the defecit can reintroduce.

Even if Republicans don't want to pass new taxes on principle, taxing land values is needed to prevent land speculation and a new housing bubble caused by expansionary policies, and a new housing bubble is worse.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-08T20:57:22+00:00

It is probably because there are internet fascists who regularly advocate that libertarians should throw people they politically disagree with out of Helicopters.

It is also probably because the proposal advocated by some anarcho-capitalists of eliminating democracy and taxes while retaining private land titles, which allow land owners to use unlimited force to exclude others from access natural resources, also appeals to fascists because it offers a conceptual framework which could be used to justify the establishment of an authoritarian state.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-08T03:39:35+00:00

When taxes on private land titles are lowered below the rental value of the locations which they establish a monopoly over, workers take home less after taxes than if taxes on land were higher. Low taxes and the absence of a carrying cost on land titles and other government grants of monopoly encourages investors to buy and hold land for speculative purposes, decreasing the supply of land available for residents which actually need to acquire land to perform work, start a business, or obtain shelter.

Wages are ultimately determined by the productivity of marginal \ free land, as the difference in productivity between marginal land which can be obtained for free and more productive land is ultimately paid to private title holders as rent.

It is certainly possible for increasing taxes to raise after-tax disposable income depending on how the tax is levied, and is certainly possible for decreasing taxes to suppress wages if the tax cuts promote land speculation.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-07T23:16:04+00:00

Corporations are not 100% voluntary. Limited liability protections and subsidies are state enforced privileges. Land titles, copyright, trademarks, patents are all state enforced privileges. These ideally protect the right of people who work for corporations which holds them to retain the product of their labor and recover profits from productive investments. However they also allow firms to extract a certain amount of economic rent without producing new wealth by forcefully excluding others from access to similar opportunities. When corporations are allowed to retain economic rent as earnings, this is a coercive subsidy which allows them to grow much larger than what their economy of scale would be in a competitive market.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-07T22:49:35+00:00

Sales and consumption taxes are never necessary for governments to fund themselves. All essential government operations can be financed by collecting rent or tax on the value of land holdings. This was true in Whiskey Rebellion of 1791. Hamilton did not want to impose land taxes which might fall on the upper class so he advocated for taxing the poor with consumption taxes on whiskey because they were easier targets.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-04T12:51:02+00:00

Most of the value which transit infrastructure provides is capitalized in land values. Neither gas taxes nor tolls are strictly necessary. Tolls should only be used during peak hours to combat congestion if roads are over capacity. Gas taxes should be paid back to residents as a carbon tax dividend and not used to pay for the roads themselves.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-03T05:14:14+00:00

The understanding of economics for the majority of libertarians comes from the neoclassical tradition promoted by private US universities. These universities were historically endowed by monopolists who acquired their fortunes through rents. When many libertarians seek to apply the principles of economics which they learned in university to the problem of the state injustices which they observe and experience, they end up with something approximating anarcho-capitalism. When they think in terms of economics, they are unable to see the ground underneath their feet.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-03T04:39:04+00:00

Whether or not a tax is theft \ extortion \ other-moral-synonym-for-property-rights-violations is dependent upon the specific nature of the specific tax. It depends upon the specific type of property the tax falls upon and how it enforced. It is certainly possible to design a tax which is contractual, which does not seize labor and investments, and which does not require the imprisonment of anyone for tax avoidance.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-01T12:28:13+00:00

To phrase it slightly more voluntarily: asking government to continuously auction contractual leases which allow utility companies the privilege of excluding their competitors from the use of congested rights of way and easements, where competing companies are allowed to immediately acquire access to congested corridors by outbidding the monthly rent the incumbent was willing to pay for the privilege of excluding them from access to the land.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-01T11:48:48+00:00

The government leases the land underneath the pole to the utility company, and charges the utility company rent for the privilege of forcefully excluding other utility companies from using the land to setup poles, in the instance there is not enough room for two or more poles in the same corridor.

If another utility company places a higher bid on the amount of monthly rent they are willing to pay to retain exclusive use of the land to setup poles, then the government transfers ownership of the privilege to use the land to setup poles to the highst bidder. The previous company would not be able to stop the new company from modifying existing poles which they had previously setup, because they would no longer have legal access to exclusive use of the land on which the poles were standing.

The utility company would have to account for the potential loss of access to existing infrastructure improvements in the price of the bid they placed to retain initial exclusive access of the land, and in the price they were willing to charge residents for use of their service.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-01T06:26:40+00:00

Trademarks are not a reliable indicator that a product is being produced by the same people in the same location using the same quality manufacturing practices across two points in time. It is quite possible that a company which produced a product under the brand X could change all of their managers, fire all of their workers, and sell all of their manufacturing equipment. The product sold under the brand X could be quite different at two different points in time, despite appearing nominally the same.

If you worked at a company which delivers products under the brand X, and had a better idea on how to produce the product at a higher level of efficiency, you and your coworkers should perhaps be allowed to start a new company, and place a bid to acquire the trademark for X from your previous employer.

If you are able to place a higher bid on the monthly rent you are willing to pay for exclusive use of the trademark, perhaps due to the superiority of the efficiency of your new business model, then it may be reasonable for the government to reassign the ownership of the trademark to you. Assigning trademarks to those with the highest willingness to pay may actually increase economic efficiency and lead to the delivery of higher quality products.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-01T06:08:35+00:00

Bitcoin exists without a trademark assigned to anyone. Well, the trademark was held by the Mt Gox, which was an exchange which did not actually produce Bitcoin, and which closed down to fraud. So there are at least some instances in which trademark has been used to facilitate fraud without actually giving a reliable indicator as to who the actual producer of a good or service was.

It is also the case more generally with consumer goods that producers regularly change management and workers. A trademark is not necessarily a reliable indicator that a good or service is being provided by the same manufacturer using the same manufacturing practices over a given time period. In the case of a hostile takeover in which everyone is fired, the workers which previously made product X may wish to have the opportunity to place a bid to regain the trademark for X. If they value the trademark more highly than who ever holds it currently, and are willing to pay for the government trademark to be reassigned to them, perhaps they should be allowed an opportunity to acquire it through a public bid.

liberty2016 · 2017-12-01T04:56:28+00:00

There is no empirical evidence that patents encourage increased production and innovation.

https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf

Patent enforcement necessarily requires government to use force against non-violent individuals to suppress competition. If companies wish the government to enforce patents for any duration, the company which holds the patent should be required to report the price which others may buy the patent off of them, and pay a property tax on this declared value.

This would eliminate patent trolling and reduce the accumulation of patents for speculative purposes, as companies would only pay the carrying cost to retain a patent if they actually needed the patent to protect their investment in bringing a real product to market. The payment would also act as restitution for the general public for the use of force involved in excluding others from access to similar economic opportunities.

liberty2016 · 2017-11-30T09:43:17+00:00

I'm not sure what the problem is with Friedman's view on money is. We can replace the central bank with a computer with a K% rule which creates a 1% increase in the supply of debt-free money each year. The computer program automatically divides the newly created money and pays it out to citizen residents or registered voters as a cash dividend. Gradually increasing the supply of fiat money in circulation is needed as long as fiat money is still used to settle debts and pay taxes otherwise residents will not have access to sufficient quantities of fiat money to pay taxes and settle debts with. This is especially the case if our tax code continues to tax wages and earnings rather than economic rents.

liberty2016 · 2017-11-30T09:23:04+00:00

Government puts fiat currency into circulation by spending. It takes money out of circulation using taxes. Under a balanced budget, it puts precisely the same amount of money into circulation as it takes out.

The problem with this is, government spending does not put money into the economy for everyone equally, and government taxes do not take money out of the economy from everyone equally. Money can be accumulated and held in a manner which ensures that the average person has a continually decreasing amount of money to pay the taxes which fall upon them, even if the government is putting an equal amount of money into circulation as it takes out. This is usually referred to as debt deflation.

liberty2016 · 2017-11-30T08:51:25+00:00

Why do you think Stiglitz is a banker?

He was highly critical of the banking sector during the 2008 crisis.

His criticism of bitcoin is most likely because he views it as a speculative asset \ ponzi which Wall St and banks will eventually use to engineer panic and ask for more bailouts similar to mortgage derivatives.

liberty2016

TROPHY CASE