Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 10:51:01 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Fair Tax and black markets  (Read 8906 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
October 16, 2012, 02:15:55 AM
 #21

Philosophically it's a little more justifiable for me, because the government defends your claim to your land.
Defends it by threatening to take it way if your don't pay the extortion money.
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, but full nodes are more resource-heavy, and they must do a lengthy initial syncing process. As a result, lightweight clients with somewhat less security are commonly used.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
Atlas
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 1


View Profile
October 16, 2012, 02:18:46 AM
 #22

*cocks shotgun*

Who says I need the government to protect my property?
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1003



View Profile WWW
October 16, 2012, 02:56:03 AM
 #23

A land tax that replaces all or many of the other taxes would be much higher then property tax.  It would change all kinds of behaviors, some for the positive and some for the negative.  People would have trouble passing down large amounts of land within the family and many people would stop owning second homes.  Anyone who had a lot of land (non working farm or just a mountain lodge) and did nothing with it would have to consider how much it would cost them. 

Nobody wants to pay taxes but a good tax plan would be simpler and not discourage good activities or alter behavior that is not negative (such as having a moderate income and a large plot of land).

Topazan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 354
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 16, 2012, 03:11:13 AM
 #24

If not the government, who says your land is yours?  I really don't see how any individual can claim land ownership by natural right.  

Some people say your right to land comes from cultivating it.  Does that mean you can't own a hunting preserve or a campground?  Can I stop the construction of a hospital by throwing seeds on the planned site?

I've heard other people say you "create" land with your labor of discovering it.  However, land has changed hands by coercive force many times through history.  Who can prove, if challenged, that the land in their possession has been transferred to them from its original discoverer by an unbroken chain of voluntary transactions, no duress involved in any of them?  If coercion was involved at any stage, then the land is stolen property.  By what right, then, do you continue to possess it?  It may be too late to return it to its original owners, but how does that make it yours?

I consider land ownership to be a concept that does not exist in nature.  It is a convention that societies create and follow.  If you can show me how it can exist without anyone to decree it, I invite you to.

I think a much more logical and practical position is to say that while individuals have an inalienable right to own themselves and their labor, natural things rightfully belong to the commons.  Whenever something is taken from the commons for private use, compensation is owed to the commons.  That, I think, is the moral basis behind the land tax.

As to the issue of how land value is calculated, that's a source of doubt in this idea for me as well.  I'm reading Progress and Poverty now, so I'm hoping to see what Henry George proposed.  However, if all else fails, even if it was a flat rate per square meter regardless of location I think that wouldn't be too bad.  It would lose some of the advantages, but it would be better than sales or income tax.

The reason I don't like sales tax much better than income tax is that it implies a similar level of oversight and control.  In order to enforce it, the government has to know where the shops are, which means we need business registration.  The government needs to know the price of everything in the official currency (let's say USD), so you have to do all your accounting in USD.  The government needs to know you aren't cheating, so they need to be able to look at your records whenever they want to.  Garage sales and lemonade stands become technically illegal.

On the other hand, with a land tax, the only thing the government needs to know is what land you claim ownership over.  Land owners can keep a supply of USD for paying taxes, while society does business with bitcoin or whatever else they want.  There's no need to register businesses.  If you want to sell something or provide a service for money, you just do it.  There's no easy way to cheat, so there's no need for a huge bureaucracy to oversee everything.

One last thought: If you don't need the government to protect your land, prove it by protecting it from the governments of the world.  Then you won't have to pay any taxes.

@Littleshop - A tax that won't "discourage good activities or alter behavior that is not negative"? And what tax is that?

Save the last bitcoin for me!
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 16, 2012, 04:20:33 AM
 #25

Some people say your right to land comes from cultivating it.  Does that mean you can't own a hunting preserve or a campground?  Can I stop the construction of a hospital by throwing seeds on the planned site?

I think you just have a poor understanding of homesteading theory. It's not just "cultivating" land that makes it yours, it's putting some labor into it. That labor could be as simple as fencing it, or putting up some signs and breaking a trail through it. You can certainly own a hunting preserve or a campground.

One last thought: If you don't need the government to protect your land, prove it by protecting it from the governments of the world.  Then you won't have to pay any taxes.

The existence of other violent gangs does not necessitate kowtowing to a violent gang yourself. Security can be provided on the market, like any other service.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Topazan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 354
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 16, 2012, 05:02:16 AM
 #26

Quote
I think you just have a poor understanding of homesteading theory. It's not just "cultivating" land that makes it yours, it's putting some labor into it. That labor could be as simple as fencing it, or putting up some signs and breaking a trail through it. You can certainly own a hunting preserve or a campground.
I'll freely admit that I don't know much about homesteading theory.  What acts constitute putting labor into land?  How much land does a given act of labor entitle you to?  Who decides?

Quote
The existence of other violent gangs does not necessitate kowtowing to a violent gang yourself. Security can be provided on the market, like any other service.
Again, prove that it's possible by doing it.

Save the last bitcoin for me!
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 16, 2012, 05:36:01 AM
 #27

Quote
I think you just have a poor understanding of homesteading theory. It's not just "cultivating" land that makes it yours, it's putting some labor into it. That labor could be as simple as fencing it, or putting up some signs and breaking a trail through it. You can certainly own a hunting preserve or a campground.
I'll freely admit that I don't know much about homesteading theory.  What acts constitute putting labor into land?  How much land does a given act of labor entitle you to?  Who decides?
Well, the simple answers are: "any sort of work," "as much as you alter with that work," and "nobody, unless there's a dispute." For a more detailed explanation, here's a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

Quote
Quote
The existence of other violent gangs does not necessitate kowtowing to a violent gang yourself. Security can be provided on the market, like any other service.
Again, prove that it's possible by doing it.
Working on it.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 2100


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 16, 2012, 02:59:12 PM
 #28

Quote
I think you just have a poor understanding of homesteading theory. It's not just "cultivating" land that makes it yours, it's putting some labor into it. That labor could be as simple as fencing it, or putting up some signs and breaking a trail through it. You can certainly own a hunting preserve or a campground.
I'll freely admit that I don't know much about homesteading theory.  What acts constitute putting labor into land?  How much land does a given act of labor entitle you to?  Who decides?
Well, the simple answers are: "any sort of work," "as much as you alter with that work," and "nobody, unless there's a dispute." For a more detailed explanation, here's a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle


And if you have 500 acres and raise a couple of tomato plants in a patch next to your back porch? And again, what about nomads? Why shouldn't a free person be able to pick out a small strip of land and cultivate it and live freely? Because someone's ancestor gave some beads to some Indians and got half-a-state in a contract that wasn't really comprehended for what it was.

To be clear, I'm not advocating anything in particular. I'm just saying that anyone who has pat answers is probably ignoring a large part of the scenario. I think property taxes are pretty despicable at one end of the scale and at the other, it's not right for someone to hold sway over vast plots of land "just because".

And I just used the word "fair" above which irks me because "fairness" is the justification behind a whole lot of wrongs being committed.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Topazan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 354
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 16, 2012, 05:34:49 PM
 #29

Quote
I think you just have a poor understanding of homesteading theory. It's not just "cultivating" land that makes it yours, it's putting some labor into it. That labor could be as simple as fencing it, or putting up some signs and breaking a trail through it. You can certainly own a hunting preserve or a campground.
I'll freely admit that I don't know much about homesteading theory.  What acts constitute putting labor into land?  How much land does a given act of labor entitle you to?  Who decides?
Well, the simple answers are: "any sort of work," "as much as you alter with that work," and "nobody, unless there's a dispute." For a more detailed explanation, here's a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
You contradict yourself.  First you said that putting up signs or fencing some land makes it yours, but under the principle of "as much as you alter with that work", you would only be able to claim the holes into which you shoved the sign and fence posts.

Incidentally, I have read the wikipedia article, and it did not answer any of my questions.  In fact, this quote raises some of the very same questions.
Quote
    An old and much respected theory holds that for a man to come into possession of a previously unowned value it is necessary for him to "mix his labor with the land" to make it his own. But this theory runs into difficulties when one attempts to explain what is meant by "mixing labor with land." Just how much labor is required, and of what sort? If a man digs a large hole in his land and then fills it up again, can he be said to have mixed his labor with the land? Or is it necessary to effect a somewhat permanent change in the land? If so, how permanent?...Or is it necessary to effect some improvement in the economic value of the land? If so, how much and how soon?...Would a man lose title to his land if he had to wait ten months for a railroad line to be built before he could improve the land?...And what of the naturalist who wanted to keep his land exactly as it was in its wild state to study its ecology?...[M]ixing one's labor with the land is too ill-defined a concept and too arbitrary a requirement to serve as a criterion of ownership.

Quote
Quote
Quote
The existence of other violent gangs does not necessitate kowtowing to a violent gang yourself. Security can be provided on the market, like any other service.
Again, prove that it's possible by doing it.
Working on it.
Great, let me know when you're finished.  In the meantime, let's just agree that while functioning, enduring anCap would be great, if we have to have a state land tax is one of the better ways to fund it.

Save the last bitcoin for me!
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
October 16, 2012, 06:25:26 PM
 #30

There's no reason a stateless society couldn't have land rent too:
http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html

I argued with Myrkul about it here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98890.0
It will be easier to...
1. Help the AnCaps "win"
2. Buy land
3. Rent it out efficiently
4. Repeat 2 & 3 until you have a huge mass of land
4.1. (By the way this is what the board game "Monopoly" was meant to illustrate)
5. Give up some control to tenants so they don't kill you
6. Don't call it a state with taxes, call it a private collective with rents/fees
...Than it will be to argue semantics with Myrkul. Tongue
Topazan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 354
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 16, 2012, 07:23:58 PM
 #31

That first step is going to be the hardest part.  Tongue

Save the last bitcoin for me!
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 16, 2012, 08:28:35 PM
Last edit: October 16, 2012, 10:12:36 PM by myrkul
 #32

I have read the wikipedia article, and it did not answer any of my questions.  In fact, this quote raises some of the very same questions.
Quote
    An old and much respected theory holds that for a man to come into possession of a previously unowned value it is necessary for him to "mix his labor with the land" to make it his own. But this theory runs into difficulties when one attempts to explain what is meant by "mixing labor with land." Just how much labor is required, and of what sort? If a man digs a large hole in his land and then fills it up again, can he be said to have mixed his labor with the land? Or is it necessary to effect a somewhat permanent change in the land? If so, how permanent?...Or is it necessary to effect some improvement in the economic value of the land? If so, how much and how soon?...Would a man lose title to his land if he had to wait ten months for a railroad line to be built before he could improve the land?...And what of the naturalist who wanted to keep his land exactly as it was in its wild state to study its ecology?...[M]ixing one's labor with the land is too ill-defined a concept and too arbitrary a requirement to serve as a criterion of ownership.

Well, then, you should read the book that that quote comes from. They go into a pretty detailed explanation after that quote. If you don't have the time to sit and read a pdf, there's an audio book version as well.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Topazan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 354
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 16, 2012, 09:55:51 PM
 #33

Ok, I read that chapter.  The wikipedia quote was not misleadingly taken out of context.  The writers of that book do not defend the "mixing labor with land" idea.  Instead, they advocate the idea that people can claim land just by marking the boundaries.  I wonder if you may have misunderstood one or the other if you say they're the same.

I find their system almost as arbitrary.  Here's two other quotes from them:
Quote
And if a large chunk of land is acquired by a man who is too lazy or stupid to make a productive use of it, other men, operating within the framework of the free market, will eventually be able to bid it away from him and put it to work producing wealth.
Quote
An environment of justice is based on the moral principle of "value for value"--that no man may justifiably expect to receive value from others without giving values in exchange...
So, the lazy man has a right to sell and receive payment for the land, just because he staked it out.  What value did he give for the value of land ownership?  What service did he provide to his buyers?  He got to the land before they could, but what good does that do them?  Why should they pay him for it?

Save the last bitcoin for me!
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 16, 2012, 10:19:05 PM
 #34

Ok, I read that chapter.  The wikipedia quote was not misleadingly taken out of context.  The writers of that book do not defend the "mixing labor with land" idea.  Instead, they advocate the idea that people can claim land just by marking the boundaries.  I wonder if you may have misunderstood one or the other if you say they're the same.

I contend that boundary marking is sufficient labor to claim the land.
It's not just "cultivating" land that makes it yours, it's putting some labor into it. That labor could be as simple as fencing it, or putting up some signs and breaking a trail through it. You can certainly own a hunting preserve or a campground.

I would suggest reading the rest of the book, not just that chapter. I also suggest, to address our other discussion, The production of security, by Gustave de Molinari.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
October 16, 2012, 10:45:14 PM
 #35

I contend that boundary marking is sufficient labor to claim the land.
And of course if a culture neither marked its boundaries nor put work into it, then "their" land belongs to whoever first sailed over and marked it.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 16, 2012, 10:47:43 PM
 #36

I contend that boundary marking is sufficient labor to claim the land.
And of course if a culture neither marked its boundaries nor put work into it, then "their" land belongs to whoever first sailed over and marked it.

Show me one such culture, that left no mark upon the land.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 950
Merit: 1001


View Profile
October 16, 2012, 10:55:44 PM
 #37

I contend that boundary marking is sufficient labor to claim the land.
And of course if a culture neither marked its boundaries nor put work into it, then "their" land belongs to whoever first sailed over and marked it.
Show me one such culture, that left no mark upon the land.
Does the moon belong to the USA? Marked it.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 16, 2012, 11:13:21 PM
 #38

I contend that boundary marking is sufficient labor to claim the land.
And of course if a culture neither marked its boundaries nor put work into it, then "their" land belongs to whoever first sailed over and marked it.
Show me one such culture, that left no mark upon the land.
Does the moon belong to the USA? Marked it.
Would you care to answer the question I posed, or are you conceding the argument?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
vampire
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 16, 2012, 11:19:40 PM
 #39

Does the moon belong to the USA? Marked it.

Well Soviets are gone. Who's left to mark it?

:-)
CharlesPonzi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
October 16, 2012, 11:21:07 PM
 #40

Ok, I read that chapter.  The wikipedia quote was not misleadingly taken out of context.  The writers of that book do not defend the "mixing labor with land" idea.  Instead, they advocate the idea that people can claim land just by marking the boundaries.  I wonder if you may have misunderstood one or the other if you say they're the same.

I contend that boundary marking is sufficient labor to claim the land.
It's not just "cultivating" land that makes it yours, it's putting some labor into it. That labor could be as simple as fencing it, or putting up some signs and breaking a trail through it. You can certainly own a hunting preserve or a campground.

I would suggest reading the rest of the book, not just that chapter. I also suggest, to address our other discussion, The production of security, by Gustave de Molinari.

I think a land tax is fair and reasonable if you wish to fence off something that belongs to the whole community. It saves you simply "hoarding" the land.

If taxpayers build a road to his property he should pay them land tax because they improved its value. In the same way land developers benefit from taxpayers building infrastructure for their allotments. In the current system this doesnt happen and a few get to profit off the labors of many.


tl'dr use it or lose it.

I landed in this country with $2.50 in cash and $1 million in hopes, and those hopes never left me.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!