Friday, October 31, 2008
Taxes and Socialism
A milder anti-progressive tax column here. I understand it to a point and, in all honesty, I am for a flat tax rate if the first X number of dollars can be exempted. I don't know what that number should be because I'm just an opinionated ass and not a policy wonk, but I'm thinking somewhere around the 25 to 35 thousand mark. In addition to that, I would want to see a consumption tax in the single digits--closer to 5 than 9--that primarily benefits the welfare state. In that way, we would have progressive taxation by effect rather than design.
I really don't understand fully the angst behind Obama raising the tax rate 3-4% on dollars made over 250K, however. I really don't. I certainly understand not wanting to give my money to idiots in Washington (or even brilliant scholars in Washington)--that's easy. But it is not that that seems to fuel the anger. It is more the very phrase of "share the wealth" that seems to gnaw at these guys. As a conservative friend of mine calls it, "giving my money to people who haven't deserved it."
1. People who make 6-figures, effectively, get a tax break already by not having to pay Social Security taxes above the 90,000 mark (it's actually probably a bit higher than that now--not sure). They can keep 7.65% more of their income to invest and spend however they please on those dollars.
2. 95%+ of what the government does with taxes is a redistribution of wealth. The money goes to highways you never drive on, universities you never attend, weapons you never fire, retirees you don't know, national parks you never visit, etc. Governments have been doing it ever since we've had governments and taxation.
3. A concentration of wealth makes for a less robust economy (see: TODAY's economy with over half the wealth being controlled by 5% of the population). Coddling the investment classs in the hopes of effective trickle-down economics does not, and has not worked.
4. It's a 3 or 4 percent increase! The same rates we had during the very prosperous Clinton years! Get over it! We have to pay the bills somehow and, if the revenues don't come from the largest pool of income in the US, then from where?
There are more points I could make, but I'm so tired of this. President Bush and his giggling gaggle of GOP sycophants put an extra 5 trillion dollars onto the debt just in his term in office. That's approximately $16.5 thousand for every man, woman, and child in the US--obviously more for every taxpayer. And that is just the debt. It is time for adults to run the government now and fix his sorry mess and, if that means raising taxes a few percentage points on the most comfortable in our society, than that's what it means.
It is far from socialism. It is acting like a grown-up.
I really don't understand fully the angst behind Obama raising the tax rate 3-4% on dollars made over 250K, however. I really don't. I certainly understand not wanting to give my money to idiots in Washington (or even brilliant scholars in Washington)--that's easy. But it is not that that seems to fuel the anger. It is more the very phrase of "share the wealth" that seems to gnaw at these guys. As a conservative friend of mine calls it, "giving my money to people who haven't deserved it."
1. People who make 6-figures, effectively, get a tax break already by not having to pay Social Security taxes above the 90,000 mark (it's actually probably a bit higher than that now--not sure). They can keep 7.65% more of their income to invest and spend however they please on those dollars.
2. 95%+ of what the government does with taxes is a redistribution of wealth. The money goes to highways you never drive on, universities you never attend, weapons you never fire, retirees you don't know, national parks you never visit, etc. Governments have been doing it ever since we've had governments and taxation.
3. A concentration of wealth makes for a less robust economy (see: TODAY's economy with over half the wealth being controlled by 5% of the population). Coddling the investment classs in the hopes of effective trickle-down economics does not, and has not worked.
4. It's a 3 or 4 percent increase! The same rates we had during the very prosperous Clinton years! Get over it! We have to pay the bills somehow and, if the revenues don't come from the largest pool of income in the US, then from where?
There are more points I could make, but I'm so tired of this. President Bush and his giggling gaggle of GOP sycophants put an extra 5 trillion dollars onto the debt just in his term in office. That's approximately $16.5 thousand for every man, woman, and child in the US--obviously more for every taxpayer. And that is just the debt. It is time for adults to run the government now and fix his sorry mess and, if that means raising taxes a few percentage points on the most comfortable in our society, than that's what it means.
It is far from socialism. It is acting like a grown-up.
Polls
Pollster's latest is here. I'm always skeptical of polls, but they can be useful indicators. If they are right, we could be about to witness a landslide for Obama. Georgia is now a toss-up state and McCain only enjoys a 6% lead in Arizona.
It shouldn't be too surprising though. As I said back in June (well before this economic collapse), the task presented to McCain is so difficult, I don't know if any Republican could have won this year.
It shouldn't be too surprising though. As I said back in June (well before this economic collapse), the task presented to McCain is so difficult, I don't know if any Republican could have won this year.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Helen
There is very little in this world I love more than a sassy old broad telling it like it is. Two of them is even better. Drop by Margaret and Helen's place if you get a chance. Helen has a pretty good missive on Palin.
Kinsley Makes the D Economic Case
My dad has often said "I always lose my job when Republicans are in power" (he is in construction). Now there are a few numbers to back up his suspicion that the Ds are better at running the economy.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Wooing Conservatives
Andrew Sullivan publishes a top-10 list of why conservatives should vote for the D. Pretty good, but I have no idea how convincing it would be on a per-voter basis (and I doubt he does either). What I appreciate most about it, however, is that he places the war on terror as #1. There is an argument to be made about a different approach to foreign policy from the Left. And, I would suspect, it will initially be a nasty debate within the Left itself--and then a more of an ideological one with the Right, as it should be.
There is fodder in the above paragraph for a number of books and policy debates, but I won't continue any longer--I've been cheating from work and personal obligations too long as it is to be writing this. But for what it's worth, a video of Republicans and Independents making their arguements better than I ever could:
There is fodder in the above paragraph for a number of books and policy debates, but I won't continue any longer--I've been cheating from work and personal obligations too long as it is to be writing this. But for what it's worth, a video of Republicans and Independents making their arguements better than I ever could:
Sunday, October 26, 2008
IQ Litmus Test
This is....amazing. And this woman is dumber is than a sack of hammers (below).
Point 1: Obama is talking about putting the highest tax bracket back to 39%, as it was during the Clinton administration (note how Clinton's economy didn't exactly destroy American prosperity). That means the tax rate going from 36% to 39%--a 3% increase in taxes on dollars made over the 250K mark. If anyone out there is making over 250K and are aghast at a 3% increase on that slice of your income, I have three words for you: Boo Frickin Hoo. We've been bleeding our budgets red and Obama is raising taxes because he must. Why? Because of that irresponsible child masquerading as a President in the White House. If you have a problem with that--blame W and his merry band of hypocrites that ran the House and the Senate for the first six years of W's presidency and, together, spent other people's money like a pack of drunken sorority girls with new credit cards. It's because of them that we have to go around the world with a tin cup and a tamborine just just to pay the massive bills we've collected.
Point 2: If progressive taxation makes one a Socialist or akin to Marxism, then lump Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan in that crowd as well.
Point 3: Eh....what's the use? Crazy broads like this will be pushed to the margins soon enough, I guess. They will still have similar private thoughts--but they will either keep them to themselves so they aren't socially ostracized or will be put out to pasture. It won't be soon enough.
UPDATE: According to Paul Abrams, Obama would increase the top marginal rate 4%, not 3%. His overall view on it is here. (What he and I neglected to mention--and where Joe the Plumber shows his ass as someone who knows little about business or taxes--is that if he incorporated his company, as he should, he could pay himself a salary of 249,999 dollars and never face a tax increase under Obama's plan).
Point 1: Obama is talking about putting the highest tax bracket back to 39%, as it was during the Clinton administration (note how Clinton's economy didn't exactly destroy American prosperity). That means the tax rate going from 36% to 39%--a 3% increase in taxes on dollars made over the 250K mark. If anyone out there is making over 250K and are aghast at a 3% increase on that slice of your income, I have three words for you: Boo Frickin Hoo. We've been bleeding our budgets red and Obama is raising taxes because he must. Why? Because of that irresponsible child masquerading as a President in the White House. If you have a problem with that--blame W and his merry band of hypocrites that ran the House and the Senate for the first six years of W's presidency and, together, spent other people's money like a pack of drunken sorority girls with new credit cards. It's because of them that we have to go around the world with a tin cup and a tamborine just just to pay the massive bills we've collected.
Point 2: If progressive taxation makes one a Socialist or akin to Marxism, then lump Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan in that crowd as well.
Point 3: Eh....what's the use? Crazy broads like this will be pushed to the margins soon enough, I guess. They will still have similar private thoughts--but they will either keep them to themselves so they aren't socially ostracized or will be put out to pasture. It won't be soon enough.
UPDATE: According to Paul Abrams, Obama would increase the top marginal rate 4%, not 3%. His overall view on it is here. (What he and I neglected to mention--and where Joe the Plumber shows his ass as someone who knows little about business or taxes--is that if he incorporated his company, as he should, he could pay himself a salary of 249,999 dollars and never face a tax increase under Obama's plan).
Saturday, October 25, 2008
In the Genes?
Temper, temper...
Joe McCain, brother of John McCain, called 911 to complain about traffic. I'm serious. When the 911 operator asked him if he is calling to complain about traffic, his response was, "F*&k you." Could the McCain campaign get any more bad news?
And, short of being mentally handicapped, can you imagine anyone besides a self-righteous and self-absorbed prick calling 911 because he is frustrated with traffic? What could possibly be going through his head? I know he is no spring chicken, but I do think that the car radio was invented prior to his birth. Why not turn it on and listen to some music or, say....find an AM station with traffic reports on them...?
Joe McCain, brother of John McCain, called 911 to complain about traffic. I'm serious. When the 911 operator asked him if he is calling to complain about traffic, his response was, "F*&k you." Could the McCain campaign get any more bad news?
And, short of being mentally handicapped, can you imagine anyone besides a self-righteous and self-absorbed prick calling 911 because he is frustrated with traffic? What could possibly be going through his head? I know he is no spring chicken, but I do think that the car radio was invented prior to his birth. Why not turn it on and listen to some music or, say....find an AM station with traffic reports on them...?
From the Pathetic to the Lugubrious
Apparently, Joe the Plumber's $40K/yr salary is still a trifle short of buying the plumbing company he wants and, instead, he is considering running for office.
Good news for Joe if he wins, Congressman don't make over $250k/yr either--so no worries about Obama taxing you more.
Good news for Joe if he wins, Congressman don't make over $250k/yr either--so no worries about Obama taxing you more.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Another New Reader?
You may not believe it, but it's true. A reader stumbled upon my post regarding Hillarah and my self-absorbed mood of saying how I have long thought her a terrible choice for VP. The reader did not dissect the post, and I thank him/her for that. I didn't like it while I was typing it, and don't like it now, because the subject matter (at least for me) is too complex for a single post. It's full of holes and question marks but--given the constraints of a blog and my inefficiency with words--I had to punt and let it be where it was.
Anyway, the reader sent a couple links I thought I would share about "Generation Jones." It's new to me and I'm a bit skeptical about it, quite frankly. I understand the point, but I don't want to get too caught up in dissecting the electorate. There is a tendency, as with all efforts to classify human beings, to use social classifications as denominators in a algebraic equation when doing so. That was not the reader's point by any means (and I'm not suggesting that it was), but it can lead to mistakes in judgement if one isn't careful.
With the overlong disclaimer, however, I still do think this is a generational shift between baby boomers and those that are not--Generation Jones or otherwise. There is no way we can compete with the boomers on the "interesting" level. The 60s were too complex and transformative to compete with. But I don't think that's a bad thing. It makes us less self-absorbed, more open to shades of grey, more...pragmatic, really.
In that way, it puts us more in the modern human, and certainly more American, tradition. Kinda boring? Yes. Self-righteous? Thankfully no. Correct? Perhaps. But willing to talk about things without absolutes or some grand agenda fueling the discussion. Long live that which is Boring, I say (at least in politics ;-)).
So, without further ado, my reader's contributions here, and in the video below.
Anyway, the reader sent a couple links I thought I would share about "Generation Jones." It's new to me and I'm a bit skeptical about it, quite frankly. I understand the point, but I don't want to get too caught up in dissecting the electorate. There is a tendency, as with all efforts to classify human beings, to use social classifications as denominators in a algebraic equation when doing so. That was not the reader's point by any means (and I'm not suggesting that it was), but it can lead to mistakes in judgement if one isn't careful.
With the overlong disclaimer, however, I still do think this is a generational shift between baby boomers and those that are not--Generation Jones or otherwise. There is no way we can compete with the boomers on the "interesting" level. The 60s were too complex and transformative to compete with. But I don't think that's a bad thing. It makes us less self-absorbed, more open to shades of grey, more...pragmatic, really.
In that way, it puts us more in the modern human, and certainly more American, tradition. Kinda boring? Yes. Self-righteous? Thankfully no. Correct? Perhaps. But willing to talk about things without absolutes or some grand agenda fueling the discussion. Long live that which is Boring, I say (at least in politics ;-)).
So, without further ado, my reader's contributions here, and in the video below.
How Cool is This?
Yet another rip-off from Andrew Sullivan (please read his blog). This picture fit the cliche of being worth 1000 words--at least to me. Obama's comment to the photographer: he had already had them re-soled once at the start of the campaign.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
As Long as I'm Feeling Self-Righteous...
Why not set myself up for a massive foot-in-the-mouth moment? I wrote a couple months ago that Hillarah was a terrible choice for VP. Actually, I said it a few times before then as well--likely more than a few times.
The 3 or 4 people that read this thing thought that I was over the top in my antipathy for Hillarah, and to a point I was, but it was motivated by a frustration with Ds (or at least non-current-day GOPs) to settle for what was 'winnable' vs. what was more bold and far better.
Obama has literally, quite literally, mobilized millions in his campaign effort. The vast majority of these volunteers do very small things such as make a few phone calls, plant signs, drive a couple people to early polling locations--nothing earth shattering. But the obvious brilliant simplicity of it is that it makes the election their election too. They have a personal stake in the outcome and--in a real way--effect the final tally beyond their single vote. It is enpowering. And, at the risk of sounding too Polyannish, it is the modern manifestation of Thomas Paine's dream and hope for the United States.
That is not to say that McCain's campaign doesn't do the same thing for its volunteers or that Hillarah wouldn't have. But can anyone imagine either of them doing it as well? Further, can anyone imagine the slime oozing out of the McCain campaign ads if Hillarah was the VP choice? With that much baggage?
Back to the intended point, this always had the chance to be a generational shift. I've said before that Obama's biggest qualification is that he is not from the Baby-Boomer generation. There are two generations younger than them that need a voice and a new politics. And it is those two generations that are really propelling Obama into the White House, rightly or wrongly. Hillarah represents neither of these two generations. That is not her fault (and it is Obama's luck), but that doesn't change the reality.
While true that Biden is not of Obama's generation, he doesn't obfuscate the platform in the way that Hillarah would have. And he gives the opposition little to oppose other than honest policy disagreements.
Even if, by some miracle, McCain wins this thing, it will be Obama's style, Obama's constituency, and Obama's campaign tactics that will guide the Ds in the presidential races in the future. It will not be Hillarah's. And that, in my humble opinion, is not only a very good thing, but a greater legacy than Hillarah could have ever left.
The 3 or 4 people that read this thing thought that I was over the top in my antipathy for Hillarah, and to a point I was, but it was motivated by a frustration with Ds (or at least non-current-day GOPs) to settle for what was 'winnable' vs. what was more bold and far better.
Obama has literally, quite literally, mobilized millions in his campaign effort. The vast majority of these volunteers do very small things such as make a few phone calls, plant signs, drive a couple people to early polling locations--nothing earth shattering. But the obvious brilliant simplicity of it is that it makes the election their election too. They have a personal stake in the outcome and--in a real way--effect the final tally beyond their single vote. It is enpowering. And, at the risk of sounding too Polyannish, it is the modern manifestation of Thomas Paine's dream and hope for the United States.
That is not to say that McCain's campaign doesn't do the same thing for its volunteers or that Hillarah wouldn't have. But can anyone imagine either of them doing it as well? Further, can anyone imagine the slime oozing out of the McCain campaign ads if Hillarah was the VP choice? With that much baggage?
Back to the intended point, this always had the chance to be a generational shift. I've said before that Obama's biggest qualification is that he is not from the Baby-Boomer generation. There are two generations younger than them that need a voice and a new politics. And it is those two generations that are really propelling Obama into the White House, rightly or wrongly. Hillarah represents neither of these two generations. That is not her fault (and it is Obama's luck), but that doesn't change the reality.
While true that Biden is not of Obama's generation, he doesn't obfuscate the platform in the way that Hillarah would have. And he gives the opposition little to oppose other than honest policy disagreements.
Even if, by some miracle, McCain wins this thing, it will be Obama's style, Obama's constituency, and Obama's campaign tactics that will guide the Ds in the presidential races in the future. It will not be Hillarah's. And that, in my humble opinion, is not only a very good thing, but a greater legacy than Hillarah could have ever left.
Ahem
So uhhh, told you so. Though I may well have underestimated him. Obama may be on his way to a landslide.
Two quotes of note from the article:
And:
Holy Shiznickels.
Two quotes of note from the article:
...[T]he pollsters are finding that some voters whom they considered "unlikely" voters have in fact turned out to vote. Zogby gives Obama a 21-point lead nationwide among people who have already voted, and SurveyUSA and Civitas peg his advantage among early voters in North Carolina at around 20 and 30 points, respectively.
And:
And according to Tom Jensen, Obama has a 68-24 lead among voters who did not cast a ballot in 2004.
Holy Shiznickels.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Colin Powell Endorses Obama
In case you haven't heard. Powell's endorsement won't really effect the election so much, I don't think. If he was out giving speeches for him, sure, but he's not going to do that.
What I think it might help accelerate, however, is a GOP reality-check. They seem to be the only thing in more disarray than the economy. When you lose the confidence of people like Warren Buffet, George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Chris Buckley, you have a problem. When you lose a man who is a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former National Security Advisor, and a former Secretary of State--all of them under Republican presidents--you have a major problem.
What I think it might help accelerate, however, is a GOP reality-check. They seem to be the only thing in more disarray than the economy. When you lose the confidence of people like Warren Buffet, George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Chris Buckley, you have a problem. When you lose a man who is a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former National Security Advisor, and a former Secretary of State--all of them under Republican presidents--you have a major problem.
Just Who is McCain?
The video below is the John McCain I miss--along with many, many Americans, I would imagine. (The part II of the video is here). Very funny, very decent, and very human. Obama did a good job as well, but wasn't near as funny (video here and here).
Here is what I didn't know about McCain. Make no mistake, the article is out to get him and show his warts. I understand that. But the article reminds me of friends and acquaintances that I have had, and still do have--people of great qualities, but not the type I would want as my leader.
Assuming that McCain is about to lose this election (certainly not guaranteed, but likely), I hope he makes more news like the video below rather than continuing on with the behavior and language he has exhibited in this nasty and divisive campaign. It seems like his worst qualities are showing now and, not to be morbid, he isn't going to be on this earth much longer. I would think he would rather be remembered as a great public servant than as a petty opportunist who--even in his 70s--never stopped being a bratty frat boy.
Here is what I didn't know about McCain. Make no mistake, the article is out to get him and show his warts. I understand that. But the article reminds me of friends and acquaintances that I have had, and still do have--people of great qualities, but not the type I would want as my leader.
Assuming that McCain is about to lose this election (certainly not guaranteed, but likely), I hope he makes more news like the video below rather than continuing on with the behavior and language he has exhibited in this nasty and divisive campaign. It seems like his worst qualities are showing now and, not to be morbid, he isn't going to be on this earth much longer. I would think he would rather be remembered as a great public servant than as a petty opportunist who--even in his 70s--never stopped being a bratty frat boy.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Ugly
A sampling of GOP supporters in PN below. It is a small sample, obviously, and hardly scientific. But it's still ugly--as in very ugly--and, no matter the defense, I haven't heard similar ugliness from the other side.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Land and Taxes
I've been watching this global economic panic like most everyone else and certainly have no answers, but I'm wondering who is vindicated in all of this? Paul Krugman, the recent Nobel Prize winner? Ron Paul, the Congressman who ran for President of the US and constantly harped on strict finance? Alexander Hamilton, who wanted a national bank? John Kenneth Galbraith, who advocated wage and price controls along with more government involvement with the market?
I have no idea. I'm sure there are many economists and pundits out there either feeling vindicated or who are now running for cover. But I can't help thinking that--in his own way--Henry George is the one most vindicated, however posthumously. Though notable for a few things, he is most remembered for his advocacy of a single tax on land--arguing that land and natural resources should belong to the public good.
It is Land, Real Estate, that was really behind this latest crisis. Before there can be sharply rising home prices, lax lending practices, defaulted mortgages, bankrupted mortgage insurance firms, or any of the things that have gone wrong, there needs to be land and the need for shelter. And it is land that governments have still not really figured out, I think. Land is certainly taxed all around the world in different ways, but I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. And I don't think many do.
Ideally, Henry George would have the dirt itself be as close to a zero-profit market as possible due to taxes taking away any increase in price. So, if one buys a plot of land for $1 million dollars and sells it for $2 million later, the $1 million increase in value would be taxed at 100%. Here is where it gets tricky, however. If one spends $1 million building something on the land and sells that building for $2 million, the $1 million increase in value for the building is not taxed at 100%. George would not have it taxed at all, in fact--just the dirt.
From what I understand, Philadelphia (and other cities in Pennsylvania) has a system something like this, where the land and the structure are taxed at different rates. No idea how well it works, but I imagine it has it's detractors. Hong Kong is known for steep land taxes so they can keep income taxes low. Even Winston Churchill favored a Land Value Tax early in his career. There are plenty of other schemes as well, of course (look here, if interested).
What I hope is that present-day economists look less at the details of government regulation, lending practices, interest rates, etc., and instead look at land tax policy again. Land is an expense to everyone from the richest to the poorest, inflating the price of everything from lease space, warehouses, factories, apartments, homes, movie theaters--anything with a structure on it--which, of course raises the prices of all goods and services. Hyper-inflated real estate prices sunk Japan into a decade-log recession back in the 90s and a mortgage crisis has caused a global financial crisis today.
I don't know how to handle it best (or really how to handle it all, truthfully--not a well trained economist). But I can't help but think that Real Estate is the last vestige of feudalism and, therefore, the hardest to deal with in a market economy. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Construction and development have everything to do with capitalism, however, and it seems quite difficult to separate the two in tax policy or overall land value. But I think it has to be done somehow.
If it can be pulled off, perhaps income and sales taxes could be lowered for everyone. Perhaps more affordable housing could result (requiring a 30-year mortgage for a modest home seems to be a failure of modern capitalism, truthfully), perhaps lower prices for goods and services could result. I really don't know. But at least it would make our supposed capitalist market economy much closer to that--a capitalist economy. As it is now, we are--quite literally--paying for our continued failure to effectively deal with the most basic of human needs: earth and shelter.
Most ironic of all, it is Real Estate--the most non-capitalistic element of our sainted market, capitalist economy--that is compelling capitalists around the world to forgo market principles and behave like socialists now. What I would give to bring Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Henry George back from the dead to see where we are at now. Criticism would come from each of them, I'm quite sure. And we would probably deserve it.
I have no idea. I'm sure there are many economists and pundits out there either feeling vindicated or who are now running for cover. But I can't help thinking that--in his own way--Henry George is the one most vindicated, however posthumously. Though notable for a few things, he is most remembered for his advocacy of a single tax on land--arguing that land and natural resources should belong to the public good.
It is Land, Real Estate, that was really behind this latest crisis. Before there can be sharply rising home prices, lax lending practices, defaulted mortgages, bankrupted mortgage insurance firms, or any of the things that have gone wrong, there needs to be land and the need for shelter. And it is land that governments have still not really figured out, I think. Land is certainly taxed all around the world in different ways, but I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. And I don't think many do.
Ideally, Henry George would have the dirt itself be as close to a zero-profit market as possible due to taxes taking away any increase in price. So, if one buys a plot of land for $1 million dollars and sells it for $2 million later, the $1 million increase in value would be taxed at 100%. Here is where it gets tricky, however. If one spends $1 million building something on the land and sells that building for $2 million, the $1 million increase in value for the building is not taxed at 100%. George would not have it taxed at all, in fact--just the dirt.
From what I understand, Philadelphia (and other cities in Pennsylvania) has a system something like this, where the land and the structure are taxed at different rates. No idea how well it works, but I imagine it has it's detractors. Hong Kong is known for steep land taxes so they can keep income taxes low. Even Winston Churchill favored a Land Value Tax early in his career. There are plenty of other schemes as well, of course (look here, if interested).
What I hope is that present-day economists look less at the details of government regulation, lending practices, interest rates, etc., and instead look at land tax policy again. Land is an expense to everyone from the richest to the poorest, inflating the price of everything from lease space, warehouses, factories, apartments, homes, movie theaters--anything with a structure on it--which, of course raises the prices of all goods and services. Hyper-inflated real estate prices sunk Japan into a decade-log recession back in the 90s and a mortgage crisis has caused a global financial crisis today.
I don't know how to handle it best (or really how to handle it all, truthfully--not a well trained economist). But I can't help but think that Real Estate is the last vestige of feudalism and, therefore, the hardest to deal with in a market economy. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Construction and development have everything to do with capitalism, however, and it seems quite difficult to separate the two in tax policy or overall land value. But I think it has to be done somehow.
If it can be pulled off, perhaps income and sales taxes could be lowered for everyone. Perhaps more affordable housing could result (requiring a 30-year mortgage for a modest home seems to be a failure of modern capitalism, truthfully), perhaps lower prices for goods and services could result. I really don't know. But at least it would make our supposed capitalist market economy much closer to that--a capitalist economy. As it is now, we are--quite literally--paying for our continued failure to effectively deal with the most basic of human needs: earth and shelter.
Most ironic of all, it is Real Estate--the most non-capitalistic element of our sainted market, capitalist economy--that is compelling capitalists around the world to forgo market principles and behave like socialists now. What I would give to bring Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Henry George back from the dead to see where we are at now. Criticism would come from each of them, I'm quite sure. And we would probably deserve it.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)