111–119 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Churches are not for profit and don't partake in the economy. At least the established European ones that have no membership dues and such.
Like all people, clergy gets paid money that they spend on things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because you cannot draw the line at who is rich. Any tax based on wealth/income is fundamentally legalized (hence perfectly ethically acceptable to most morons) theft.
So Americans in the 50s were at their most moronic? Apart from the obvious social considerations...this doesn't seem correct.
Yep.
Quote: if at age 20 you are not a socialist you do not have a heart. If at age 30 you are not a capitalist, you do not have a brain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> except landlords have to pass those expenses into rental prices if they wish to be in the green. Except they can't, because (barring artificial price ceilings like rent control) they're almost certainly already charging the optimal rent for maximum profit; if they could actually charge higher without losing money as a result, they already would have, property tax or no. The actual reason property tax increases rent…
> if they could actually charge higher without losing money as a result, they already would have That’s not numerically correct. There are different market pressures on renters versus owners. A landlord can only charge what a renter is capable of paying regardless of taxes or value on the property. If a property ends up in the red because either the landlord cannot charge high enough rents or cannot find tenants they…
If there are no/insufficient renters able or willing to pay rent above some point, then that strongly implies what the actual value of that rental might be. So I'm failing to see where what I wrote would be "not numerically correct"; if anything, that only serves to demonstrate my point, no?
> Also, high property taxes do not penalize development. I live in an area with high property taxes and it’s one of the fastest growing areas in the country for the last 20 years.
Seems more likely that the growth is in spite of the high property taxes, and that converting those property taxes into land value taxes would improve things further. Numerically-speaking, a general property tax does penalize development, since more development = more overall property value = more property tax; the rental demand might be sufficient to make it worthwhile to develop anyway (because the increased rental income exceeds the increased property tax), but it's still a hindrance in that equation.
Contrast with LVT, where the tax is an active driver of development rather than being some minimum bar that not everyone will be see as worthwhile/profitable to hurdle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Americans in the 50s were at their most moronic? Apart from the obvious social considerations...this doesn't seem correct.
>So Americans in the 50s were at their most moronic? Yep. Quote: if at age 20 you are not a socialist you do not have a heart. If at age 30 you are not a capitalist, you do not have a brain.
The 1950s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Americans in the 50s were at their most moronic? Apart from the obvious social considerations...this doesn't seem correct.
>So Americans in the 50s were at their most moronic? Yep. Quote: if at age 20 you are not a socialist you do not have a heart. If at age 30 you are not a capitalist, you do not have a brain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So Americans in the 50s were at their most moronic? Yep. Quote: if at age 20 you are not a socialist you do not have a heart. If at age 30 you are not a capitalist, you do not have a brain.
Not Americans in their 50s. The 1950s .
Socialist policies are largely favored by the morons, they really do not see the slippery slope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are low cost items, but poor people also have less money to spend so that cancels out. Here's an example: Sales tax of 10%, poor person has an income of $1000 per month and spends it all. 10%/$100 of income goes to tax. Rich person has an income of $10000 per month. They spends $5000 and save $5000. 5%/$500 of income goes to tax. That's like a reverse progressive income, arguably very disadvantageous for the poo…
There are ways around this. You could minimize the accounting by setting a rebate level, then issuing a check to everyone (yes, even the rich people) for that amount. To use your numbers, if you issued a rebate check for $100/month to everyone, the poor person would pay an effective rate of zero, while the rich person would still pay an effective rate of $400/month.
† ††
O ^.^ |< ° ° ^.^ /\ ° ° ◦<o ◦<o O\ O\ http://matthewrevelation.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow"> Matthew 4 [8] Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Revelation 3 [17] Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://matthew-revelation.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow"> LOOk here, and don't look away! your" rel="nofollow">http://billionairesonparade.blogspot.com/2018/10/2018.html">... favorite Billionaires !
scratchwiththechickens@gmail.com Well, touch my feathers
Seeking research funding
!Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like all people, clergy gets paid money that they spend on things.
That's interesting if one thinks this through. Is clergy taxable people? And where's the line between profit and non-profit? Is supporting clergy non-profit?