Define "mess". Why is Iraq now a "mess" but wasn't when Saddam did the butchering? Is "mess" the same as a "problem" with fewer victims? If so, why is a "mess" something one would try to avoid, given an existing "problem"? For me the answer is very simple. On the one hand there is a fascist dictator and hundreds of thousands of victims, on the other is the current "mess" with hope for the future and already a
Yes.
If you find typos, you can keep them.
In German "International Law" is "UN-Recht" ("UN Law"). And "injustice" is "Unrecht". An Israeli author, Ephraim Kishon (who writes in German and Hebrew) pointed that out.
I think there are two questions to be asked in this case. One is how you should behave towards Muslims from Moroco. The other is how they should behave towards an American. BOTH cultures have their own traditions and ways. Morocan culture might be chauvinistic, but this family has moved to America (I assume that is where you met them). They would expect you to respect Morocan culture had you moved to Moroco, so I think
"I never said anythign about a city. I mean side-by-side." Side by side they would be worth the same and taxed the same. Why would you tax the one more just because he makes better use of the land and produced more value? Why tax someone more just because he is more productive? As for the evidence you don't provide; you seem to be under the impression that your repeated claims constitute evidence. But evidence is wha
"The landlord role has granted them the attitude that even when we do pay our taxes, said land can be taken and redistributed if it is in the public interet. If you aren't aware of any new developments in that area, I suggest you pay a bit more attention to the news." I wasn't aware that the US had a land value tax system and that the supreme court's decision was the direct result of it. Please elaborate. (I know it isn't true so it should be
drmiler, perhaps you can explain your reading of the article. I have two questions: 1. What does "It is based on market value of the land only (i.e., exclusive of improvements)." mean? You seem to be certain that it does not possibly mean taxing the natural resource "land" but not the produced objects on it "improvements". Does anybody else understand that sentence that way? 2. In the two sentences in the pa
"You don't see the corruption in a farmer with 20 acres paying the same 'land tax' as the Oligarch who has 20 acres jammed with infrastructure dragging in the wealth?" You actually believe that 20 acres of farm land are worth the same as 20 acres of industrial estate in a city? Then it's no wonder you don't understand the tax system. Do you realise that demand for land in a city is greater than demand for the same amount of l
drmiler, the article specifically says that the value of land without improvements is taxed. Assuming that this is so is NOT an erroneous assumption. The text you quote says that _AT THE BEGINNING_ a "true land market tax had not yet developed". The article says that Estonia has a land value tax and defines "land value tax" as a tax on land values excluding improvements, which is exactly the kind of tax I spoke about. So what is your point? T
Drmiler, of course Estonia is operating on a land value tax. The difference between what the article calls a "land value tax" and a "land tax" is that a land value tax taxes LAND ONLY and NOT IMPROVEMENTS, while a land tax would tax both. This is still the very same difference between natural resource and produced good that I have been trying to explain for some time now. The article makes that very clear: "It [the tax] is based on market value of the land onl
Bakerstreet, I did not claim that they are doing better than western nations. But the results the have are a lot better than the results you claimed were the obvious logical results of such a tax scheme. They might just do better than some western nations in a few years. But I think comparing Estonia to western nations is not quite as useful as comparing them to other ex-soviet republics. And among those Estonia is doing extremely well. Their GDP/P is much higher than everybody
"It [the tax] is based on market value of the land only (i.e., exclusive of improvements)." "the tax is defined by law as a land-value tax, since the statute bases it on market value." "Which kinda shoots your whole argument in the foot." No, it doesn't. It merely specifically explains the difference between a land value tax and a "land tax" or property tax. OF COURSE land value tax is based on the market value of land. That's what "land value" means.
Kingbee, apart from the joking, I am rather interested in one thing. Did you read the article about land value taxation in Estonia before you made the joke about the madness of supporters of land value taxation? Or was your ridicule based solely on ignorance? Or were you perhaps aware of some of the evidence Bakerstreet believes exists and preferred ridiculing me over supporting your position with that evidence?
Kingbee, what is the connection here? Or were you suggesting another example of the negative effects of land value taxation using the Bakerstreet system of generating evidence? In that case I must agree that you succeeded. I concede that murder is often considered to be as direct an effect of land value taxation as the things Bakerstreet spoke about. In fact I would personally make the claim that the relationship bet
So I take it you didn't read the article about Estonia and I see that you still didn't get the difference between land and improvements (and why property tax is not the same as a land value tax). I did not claim that buildings are "improvements to the nature of space time". I referred to the land itself, which you claimed could be "improved" while I maintain that such improvements constitute man-made objects and not a part of the natural resou
The results of land value taxation: www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_5_59/ai_70738923 While I could not simply open a news paper to see the results, I could find it on the Web. It seems my memory of Estonia using such taxation was correct. What I do not find is the negative effects Bakerstreet claims to have found doing similar research (or the effects he is sure he will find should he do such research). I therefor put it to Bakerstreet that the effects
If you will note the first statement about land taxation I have made: "I'd only want a few changes to get closer to my ideal place. For example if use of land and other natural resources as well as pollution (which is, in a way, also a use of a natural resource) was taxed and income and property (that is personal property, aka stuff) were not, the guiding principle would be exactly what I mentioned: natural resources would benefit everyone (us
"I directly quoted your reply that I was refering to. It was reply 14. And there is "nothing" in there in regards to taxes. And for that matter baker misunderstood nothing. See his last reply and read the last 4 paragraphs." You must have missed several of my replies where I was going on about taxation. How odd. In the very text you quoted (#14 apparently) I speak of how income tax pays for streets and such. And Bakerstreet did mi
"Leauki, aka Andrew J. Brehm, has several problems here. One is the fact that he has no idea of cause and effect, and doesn't realize that giving the government the right to tax natural resources enevitably leads to the concepts I brought up. " The fact that I disagree with you about the effect of taxing natural resources doesn't mean that I don't realise them. I merely disagree with you about what the effects would be. And given that
"Sorry Andrew, but THIS is what I was talking about! No where in your reply were you talking about taxes. Just the value of a piece of property. And no matter what you say, if you add buildings, running water or get electricity to it they are considered improvements and make the property worth more! Please note the highlighted section." I don't know what you were talking about, it wasn't the point. I was trying to tell you what _I_ was talking
drmiler, referring specifically to the act you quote: it refers to improvements according to American law. It does NOT make the claim that a house is a natural resource and thus doesn't affect the distinction between the two. Any taxation based on such a distinction would be entirely unaffected by it. I insist again on the fact that an improvement to land, which is, in fact, produced by man, is by definition not and can never
"You can reject this all you want and to be truthful you are right but only "partly". Two pieces of property exactly the same. one with a house one without. Guess which is going to cost more? The house is considered to be an "improvement"!" Yes indeed. But isn't a house by definition a produced good and not a natural resource? So how could it be an improvement of land within the context of taxing natural resources but not produced goo
Bakerstreet, you were misquoting me. I did not say the words you attributed to me. I did not even mention the subject. I merely proposed taxing natural resources rather than production, and you started your crusade against all sorts of positions you claimed I agreed with. I would be very curious to learn in what news paper you read news about which land taxation scheme with the results you claim such a scheme would have. I believe you are guessing the results. And you
"No, sorry, I have no idea where you are coming from with any of this. You can't divert this by crying 'straw man'." So you insist that I proposed redistributing land? "The line "The value of a piece of land is not based on anything its owner does with it." is shamefully false, as anyone who has made improvements to land and resold it for a profit, or had to PAY HIGHER TAXES ON IT AS A RESULT could tell you." I reject the in
JoeUser Forums