Walmart

[Dr. Shane]

Sounds like you need to do more study in history too. The issue is far from clear. Those that pretend they know more than the rest of us look all the more silly when the facts are discussed.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Property tax causes almost the same effect - it stops a handful of people claiming huge amounts of land.

Alaska is the only state where a person can claim land without paying for it. I do agree that property tax on non-homestead property is not nearly as abusive as taxing a person's homestead. As the Habitat for Humanity cases show, taxing a person's homestead can result in the person not being able to live there anymore. We should be able to purchase a place to live and not have to keep paying on it forever.

[bevin]

Quote:

Those that pretend they know more than the rest of us look all the more silly when the facts are discussed.

Instead of making personal attacks, why don't you actually write down the facts you think are relevant?

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

We should be able to purchase a place to live and not have to keep paying on it forever.

Do you believe such land ownership should be transferrable?

If so, do you believe that Bill Gates should be able to buy huge tracts of land today, and set them aside in perpetuity from all use so that a thousand years from now, this land is still "out of commission"?

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

If you are going to use ancient Israel as a model for taxation, then either (a) it is a coincidence and you are just bringing up spurious facts that don't really support your case in the hope of bambozzling your audience, or ( some aspects of it are applicable, in which case you need to distinquish those aspects that are from those that aren't.

I did precisely that. Tithing was their only form of taxation, that was used, to employ your phrase, "for necessary services."

The other things you mentioned were unrelated to tithing. You keep trying to confuse the issue by including unrelated items, and you declined to discuss their less salutary elements.

I will not respond to your inflammatory and invidious remark, as I recognize it is a substitute for reason.

Quote:

In this case, it is obvious that Israelite law had this redistributing of wealth in it. This implies that the concept of land ownership in perpetuity is not necessarily God's plan.

You need to look at that again. In fact, ownership in perpetuity is precisely what the jubilee was designed to promote, since no one could sell it away permanently. It would eventually revert to the original clan, who would thus own it in perpetuity.

[bevin]

Quote:

You need to look at that again. In fact, ownership in perpetuity is precisely what the jubilee was designed to promote, since no one could sell it away permanently. It would eventually revert to the original clan, who would thus own it in perpetuity.

You are correct. I was not precise enough in my statement. The concept of AN INDIVIDUAL owning the land in perpetuity is not necessarily God's plan.

Instead the land was owned by the community, and reused as the community as a whole saw fit. The individual could not put limits on the indefinite future use of land they "owned".

In particular this means that the community had the option of leasing the land out, which is basically what a property tax is.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Ed wrote, earlier

Quote:

The tithe was not a welfare system. It was in essence a temple tax, to compensate the Levites since they had no land of their own. So it does not belong with the others.

Now he writes

Quote:

Tithing was their only form of taxation, that was used, to employ your phrase, "for necessary services."

Clearly he does not regard welfare, roads, communication, education, military, legal, ... as part of the "necessary services" since these were things the Levites did not supply.

Clearly then, the tithe is not a model for modern taxation.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

I will not respond to your inflammatory and invidious remark, as I recognize it is a substitute for reason.

Do you understand the English construct

either ... or ...

?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Indian treaties are in a class with treaties with foreign countries (and thus are not relevant to this discussion). The only thing that is clear is that they were violated. While there have been various attempts by various levels and branches of government to remedy those broken treaties, the treaties themselves were probably not legal in the first place since many of the Indian chiefs that signed them did not have authority from their tribes to do so. Certainly it is not a clear issue. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the protection of private property since native Americans were not US citizens until 1924 and did not have the same concept of property as US law did.

Quote:

do you believe that Bill Gates should be able to buy huge tracts of land today, and set them aside in perpetuity from all use so that a thousand years from now, this land is still "out of commission"?

As I mentioned earlier, property tax on non-homestead property is not nearly as offensive. Many times industry is given tax-free property for ten years in order to entice them to build factories in certain locations. Certain localities certainly can be abusive with property tax by increasing the appraisal values of property dramatically over a short period of time and the owners have little recourse but to pay the tax or sell the property. That seems even more abusive when it is a person's home.

Should Bill Gates be allowed to have a big mansion and not pay taxes on it? I think so. I believe homesteads are limited in acreage, only one residence is allowed per homestead and a person must actually live on the property declared to be his homestead for six months out of the year. Most states tax homesteads at a discounted rate but even at that rate, poor people end up losing their home due to inability to pay the taxes.

[there buster]

Quote:

Instead the land was owned by the community, and reused as the community as a whole saw fit. The individual could not put limits on the indefinite future use of land they "owned".

That's sheer fantasy. It was not owned by the community. It was owned by individual families.

Quote:

In particular this means that the community had the option of leasing the land out, which is basically what a property tax is.

A family leasing its land for a limited number of years is not a property tax.

[there buster]

Quote:

Clearly he does not regard welfare, roads, communication, education, military, legal, ... as part of the "necessary services" since these were things the Levites did not supply.

It is not a matter of what "I regard," one way or another. It was the system God put into place to finance the services for those who performed those services for the whole nation.

Education was performed in the home. Military service was voluntary, and they had no paid legal system.

The misinformation in your post is thus comprehensive.

Any actual economic argument would be based on whether a 10% flat tax could fund necessary services, defining necessary services as those which can only be supplied by government, and which are very few.

Given a GDP of more than $13 trillion, 10% could probably take care of those necessary services.

Israelites had to pay for, or depend upon God for many of the services we consider 'necessary.' The 'God' of socialism is the state, which is socialists want the state to supply everything.

[there buster]

Quote:

Do you understand the English construct

either ... or ...

?

Having taught junior high for many years, I understand precisely what you're doing.

[bevin]

Quote:

the treaties themselves were probably not legal in the first place since many of the Indian chiefs that signed them did not have authority from their tribes to do so

or did not belong to the tribe that owned the land! This is what may have happened with Manhattan...

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_156.html

So the USA's claim to the USA is really based on conquest, and the treaties signed are irrelevant...

Quote:

Should Bill Gates be allowed to have a big mansion and not pay taxes on it? I think so. I believe homesteads are limited in acreage, only one residence is allowed per homestead and a person must actually live on the property declared to be his homestead for six months out of the year. Most states tax homesteads at a discounted rate but even at that rate, poor people end up losing their home due to inability to pay the taxes.

I think you and I agree that each individual should be allowed a small acreage with modest house exempt from property tax. Sounds like we also agree that it is reasonable to charge a property/land tax on acreages above that amount.

Personally I think that taxing a person based on how they choose to spend their money is unfair, so I am not keen on sales taxes. I prefer income tax because that doesn't too badly affect how people spend their money - although the rules have to be careful to deal with barter as well as $ exchange.

[bevin]

Quote:

That's sheer fantasy. It was not owned by the community. It was owned by individual families.

Define "family".

Quote:

A family leasing its land for a limited number of years is not a property tax.

and the difference is...

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

Any actual economic argument would be based on whether a 10% flat tax could fund necessary services, defining necessary services as those which can only be supplied by government, and which are very few.

Given a GDP of more than $13 trillion, 10% could probably take care of those necessary services.

What do you regard as necessary services?

[there buster]

I cannot devote the time necessary to assist a person who fails to differentiate between a contract voluntarily entered into by private parties, and an assessment made by a governmental entity on pain of imprisonment.

[bevin]

Quote:

I cannot devote the time necessary to assist a person who fails to differentiate between a contract voluntarily entered into by private parties, and an assessment made by a governmental entity on pain of imprisonment.

The Levitical laws were not entered into voluntarily by individuals alive when Moses read them out, but corporately - and the punishments were worse than imprisonment. Their children did not even have the corporate choice - they simply had to abide by the law of the land, or (for example) get stoned to death.

Property taxes are entered into voluntarily in the USA by buying property - indeed different locations have different taxes, so you have a wide range of choices.

Income taxes are similarly entered into voluntarily when you decide to enter into a contract that is defined by the government as income - no-one makes you earn any.

/Bevin

ps: Not having the time is a great excuse for ducking questions you don't want to answer, isn't it!

[there buster]

Quote:

The Levitical laws were not entered into voluntarily by individuals alive when Moses read them out

The question did not involve the differences between the 'adoption' of Levitical law vs. modern legislation. So your point is at best a straw man, a cynical effort to confuse, or you really can't tell the difference. In the latter case, others will have to assume responsibility for helping you with elementary reasoning.

You asked the difference between a lease and property tax. No one is forced to lease their land to another.

If you cannot keep track of your own questions, it's no wonder you have difficulty understanding the answers. Either you can't tell the difference, or you're being intentionally obtuse. I don't have the time to deal with one, and won't waste my time on the other.

Your reasoning on the voluntary paying of taxes is risible. On that notion, whenever a person dies, they 'volunteer' to pay the estate tax. Ludicrous.

[bevin]

Oh it is such fun watching Ed avoid answering such simple questions as

Quote:

Quote:

Any actual economic argument would be based on whether a 10% flat tax could fund necessary services, defining necessary services as those which can only be supplied by government, and which are very few.

Given a GDP of more than $13 trillion, 10% could probably take care of those necessary services.

What do you regard as necessary services?

and

Quote:

Quote:

That's sheer fantasy. It was not owned by the community. It was owned by individual families.

Define "family".

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

defining necessary services as those which can only be supplied by government,

It's dreary business teaching junior high students how to read.

[bevin]

Ed, that is an amusing definition...

There are NO services that can ONLY be supplied by government.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Awful lot of name-calling and hostility on all sides here, and a lot of issues all tangled up together. Perhaps we can lower the rhetorical temperature a little and focus back in on the questions?

The digression into God's/ancient Israel's model of social structure and 'taxation' has been unhelpful, IMO, because it has compared unlike things such as the tithe (for ecclesiastical purposes) and taxation. I do think there are principles that underlie that system that might be relevant to such a discussion, but it would require some digging (with goodwill on all sides) because among other things Israel was a theocracy and (at the time of the handing down of much of the law) a nomadic tribe. Later they settled in Caanan and land laws were instituted, but they are part of a code that also includes provision for slavery and a whole variety of other conditions (economic conditions, therefore relevant) that do not apply today.

So my suggestion is that it might be clearer to start two new threads (since 'Walmart' was left in the dust 15 pages or so ago). One would look at 'God's economic principles' as worked out in the Old Testament laws about economic matters. Another would look at principles for a modern Western economy.

A 10% flat tax would yield significantly less revenue than current taxes. That would imply significantly reduced government services. I'd be interested to see what specific areas are proposed for cutting, and what should be retained. This discussion about taxation is in practice a discussion about the legitimate role of government in a modern Western economy. Might be clearer not to keep working by proxy but take on that issue head on.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Income taxes are similarly entered into voluntarily when you decide to enter into a contract that is defined by the government as income - no-one makes you earn any.

This is kind of long so I will break it up

Thus income taxes encourage people to stay at home and live off the government or anyone else willing to support them. Exactly. This is the argument used by libertarians and others that want to abolish the IRS.

Personally I don't subscribe to that point of view. I favor income tax and a graduated tax scale. However I think only contributions given to government-approved, non-profit organizations and state-recognized religions should be tax deductible. Tax credits should be available to encourage certain types of behavior like purchasing energy efficient cars and appliances, getting married, having children, etc. The income tax laws should be a lot simpler.

My Graduated Tax Scale Perspective

The graduated tax scale shouldn't be excessive and no one should be exempt. The way the law is now, the poor pay nothing and the highest income earners pay 35%. The wealthy paying more is justified because they have benefited more from society so as a result they return more to it. However the government has taken that principle a little too far which has just caused the wealthy to hide their income. Revenues from the rich actually increase when their tax bracket is lowered into a acceptable range.

35% is historically in the acceptable range for top income earners. Under Clinton it was 39% which isn't too bad either. It was 31% under Bush the elder. Reagon dropped it from Nixon's 70% to 50% and later to 28%. Eisenhower had it up at 91%. Trueman had it at 94%. FDR had it at 88% during the war and 79% during much of the Great Depression. During the Roaring 20's it was about 25% and Wilson had it up to 77% during WW1.

I think most of us can agree no one should have to pay over 75% of their income to the Federal government. Especially when we remember they still have to pay state income tax in many states, property tax, sales tax and various user taxes like telephone and gasoline.

High Taxes and The Economy

Economically we saw a boom in this country in the 1920s with low tax rates. FDR tied to create a boom by expanding government and creating more government employees. To fund his programs he drove taxes sky high and his best efforts failed. Government cannot create a boom. Private industry creates booms when government gets out of their way but economies run in cycles so booms will be followed by recessions. Some economists believe that Hoover's and FDR's schemes actually made what would have been a recession into a depression. The market crash of 1929 was a correction that didn't need to lead into a depression.

Sales Tax and Corporate Tax

Since corporate tax is always passed onto the consumer, it is simply a form of sales tax. This type of tax, like user taxes, seem to most people to be the most fair. Because the people using the services or products pay the tax. In most people's mind this is also a volunteer tax. The exceptions would be perhaps food and clothing which we need to buy and even where they have no sales tax, they still carry the corporate tax.

[Dr. Shane]

I started a new thread in World Affairs to discuss Modern Economics. The Bible economics thing is not as interesting to me. So those that want to continue the discussion on modern economics can :otb come on over to World Affairs and join in.

[Bravus]

Nice work, Shane, on addressing the issues in some detail. These various comments are not all disagreements, just continuation of the discussion.

Quote:

I think most of us can agree no one should have to pay over 75% of their income to the Federal government.

Agreed, but on a technical note the top marginal income tax scale is not what they pay on their whole income, but on the top portion, so the effective rate on their whole income is lower than the top marginal rate. The top marginal rate in Australia at the moment is 45% I think, but that's not the effective rate on the whole income.

Here are the rates:

Income: $0 – $6,000 Tax rate: Nil

Income: $6,001 – $25,000 Tax rate: 15c for each $1 over $6,000

Income: $25,001 – $75,000 Tax rate: $2,850 plus 30c for each $1 over $25,000

Income: $75,001 – $150,000 Tax rate: $17,850 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000

Income: Over $150,000 Tax rate: $47,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000

So, as an example, a person earning $200,000 a year is in the 45% tax bracket, but the income tax payable is $47,850 + (0.45x$50,000) = $47,850 + $22,500 = $70,350. This is a fraction over 35% of their income.

(Apologies if I'm illustrating the obvious.)

Sales and consumption taxes can be fair if they have some exemptions for staple foods and things like rent, but otherwise they tend to be regressive, since poorer people must spend more of their income and therefore pay a higher proportion of tax than richer people who can invest their excess income.