[Zerogouki]

What gives you the right to services that you did nothing to earn, paid for with money that I DID earn, but was taken from me?

I want a serious, rational answer.

[Paradigm]

How can I be so sure that you earned all that money? Are you an island of productivity, totally unreliant on others? Have you made no use of public services such as roads and other infrastructure in making your money? Did you invent all the technology used to produce your product or service? Did you create the trade routes that make one location more productive than another? What gives you the right to keep all this wealth which is not a result of your own labor?

[Zerogouki]

So you're saying that leftism is primarily based on hatred of the rich?

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Paradigm]

So you're saying that leftism is primarily based on hatred of the rich?

No, I'm saying you make shit up and never bother to put up an actual argument. Your original question assumes that all wealth is earned, when this is clearly not the case.

[Dr House]

No, I'm saying you make shit up and never bother to put up an actual argument. Your original question assumes that all wealth is earned, when this is clearly not the case.

Well in that case we should tax exclusively that wealth which is unearned, which income taxes obviously do not do. But I guess as a Georgist I'm not gonna hear much argument on that point from you.

Mainstream liberals, however, would put up a fight on that point, because taxes on unearned wealth are generally regressive, since most are user fees and property taxes (under which category the LVT falls).

[Zerogouki]

you make shit up

No, I don't.

and never bother to put up an actual argument

Neither did you.

Your original question assumes that all wealth is earned

No it didn't. It only assumes that MY wealth is earned. And even if it wasn't... so what? Does that give you any more of a right to it?

[Paradigm]

Mainstream liberals, however, would put up a fight on that point, because taxes on unearned wealth are generally regressive, since most are user fees and property taxes (under which category the LVT falls).

LVT, and even property tax, are NOT regressive. Plus, many liberals support ecotaxes, which are about the most mainstream manifestation of Georgist principles. As other taxes, income tax and especially capital gains tax tend to catch some of the rent along with the earned wealth, and in the absence of a Georgist tax structure, are among the best ways to capture rent. Unearned wealth by its nature tends to be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. Incidentally, unearned wealth is also a central focus of the social credit movement.

In any case the fact that a great deal of wealth is unearned undermines the libertarian argument against taxation. Given this fact, the question then becomes how best to distribute this wealth. Both liberals and conservatives agree that taxation is necessary to run a functioning government. Liberals simply see it as more fair to have those who have more wealth contribute relatively more of it society, and redistribute it in a way that benefits all of society. Conservatives think that it's best to reduce the burden on the wealthy so they can create more jobs, while having regressive taxes which force the lower classes to save more. Libertarians, meanwhile, bitch about theft while offering idiotic alternatives, if any at all.

[Dr House]

LVT, and even property tax, are NOT regressive.

Yes they are. People with higher incomes spend more of their money in capital goods, which causes the incidence of any taxes on anything other than income or assets to be regressive relative to the rate applied. The fact that the LVT is neutral to the final cost of land ownership does not change this, since we're talking about tax incidence here.

[Paradigm]

Yes they are. People with higher incomes spend more of their money in capital goods, which causes the incidence of any taxes on anything other than income or assets to be regressive relative to the rate applied

That's not the way it works. Regardless of what they spend on other commodities, the wealthy tend to have higher value land than the poor. The burden of LVT falls much more on higher incomes than lower, since rent tends to concentrate on more valuable land. It also falls more on landlords than on tenants.

[Dr House]

That's not the way it works. Regardless of what they spend on other commodities, the wealthy tend to have higher value land than the poor. The burden of LVT falls much more on higher incomes than lower, since rent tends to concentrate on more valuable land.

The burden of sales taxes falls higher on the rich than the poor, too. Does it tend to fall more on the rich relative to their income?

It also falls more on landlords than on tenants.

At least part of the cost is transfered into the rent price, but fair point.

[Paradigm]

The burden of sales taxes falls higher on the rich than the poor, too. Does it tend to fall more on the rich relative to their income?

Yes. Land ownership goes up exponentially with wealth. Rich people get wealthy off their land, then use that money to buy more land, etc. Higher incomes also tend to be more rent-based than lower incomes. Much of what gets counted as capital gains is actually rent, which is why I support high capital gains taxes until a more rent-based tax system is implemented.

[Zerogouki]

In any case the fact that a great deal of wealth is unearned undermines the libertarian argument against taxation... Libertarians, meanwhile, bitch about theft

Not all libertarians are like that, only the most extreme ones who write all the literature and talking points. The more moderate libertarians, who probably constitute the majority, only want lower taxes, and primarily because they are bad for the economy, not because it's "theft" (hint: it's not theft if you agree to pay it, which you do when you decide to live in a country) or because of whether they earned it or not.

[QatzelOk]

Well in that case we should tax exclusively that wealth which is unearned,

That would mean most profits.

So you're actually taking an extremely "leftist" ideological stance here.

[Lucky Strike]

That would mean most profits.

Profits are unearned? That's rich. So if I start a business from scratch, putting my own financial security on the line, and earn a profit of, say, $30,000 at the end of my first year, that should be taxed because it's 'unearned?'

[ingliz]

What gives you the right to services that you did nothing to earn, paid for with money that I DID earn, but was taken from me?

The legislature, as all rights are legal rights.

[Average Voter]

It is problematic determining if somebody earned their wealth. When two people trade by consent nobody has earned what they are trading for. If a person creates a web page and sells it for 10% of all of that sites future earnings, do they deserve any more or any less wealth than than another web page designer who creates a web page and instead sells it at an upfront $1,000? Does the buyer who bought the first web page deserve to pay more taxes than the buyer of the second? If he is taxed, and they didn't earn the money, then who earned it? Should the wealth be burned? Taxing for the sake of not earning something seems to be, instead, taxing somebody for tax sake. I don't see the virtue in that.

If we are to tax for the use of public service, then the use of such public services ought to be taxed. Taxing at the gas pump to fund the public roads built, while not perfect, is a more purposeful use of taxing people; where the more one uses it, the more one is taxed for it. Still, the tax should only exist to fund the creation and maintenance of the public service being taxed for, not to fund somebody who had nothing to do with the service because the government thinks such a person earned it.

[dwix]

What gives you the right to services that you did nothing to earn, paid for with money that I DID earn, but was taken from me?

You did not earn it on your own. Your wealth came from different sources, not merely your own productivity. Society connects almost everyone, and as Paradigm said, you aren't an island of productivity.

[Michaeluj]

You did not earn it on your own. Your wealth came from different sources, not merely your own productivity. Society connects almost everyone, and as Paradigm said, you aren't an island of productivity.

Exactly. An animal on a small island with very little to live off of will paddle to a larger, more life-supporting island, eating the Island's food, breeding with the island's natives and providing fertilizer for the plants, and bowing down to the laws of that land.

[Order]

Profits are unearned? That's rich. So if I start a business from scratch, putting my own financial security on the line, and earn a profit of, say, $30,000 at the end of my first year, that should be taxed because it's 'unearned?'

You should be taxed because without the society around you, your business and your profit would never have come into existence.

[Michaeluj]

And without the intelligence, guidance, intense risks, and capital from those people, those workers would not have quite as many of their jobs. This is a partnership--not a friendship with 'conditions'.

The question you should be asking is whether you want a million laptops or another production facility. If people can suddenly buy more, they will likely opt for the laptops.