ex-President Trump

If you can't write a few sentences to wet my beak on the topic it doesn't sound worth looking up and reading.

If you take the phrase word for word it sounds like one of the stupidest phrases ever said - possibly above defund the police.

Yes, we should be looking at who supported which laws and not who was at the top since in our current system the guy at the top can get out voted on a lot of laws.

In the same light, if I was a school principal and you were a teacher and you murdered some kid. Most people would want to look you up even though I am your boss.

Tax cuts don't give money to people. They allow people to keep more of the money that they earned.

I was going for the pure waste from the tax cut alone, which I also underestimated as it is 1.9 trillion. Things like the care acts are estimated to have kept unemployment from reaching 30% or whatever for on end after his failed covid response were like splitting 8s against a 10. Not a great situation to be in, but a necessary play.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

You not looking things up on your own is not surprising.

Again, it is only because it sounds like perhaps the dumbest phrase ever uttered in the history of humankind. The phrase itself very clearly suggests that one (or a very few amount of people) own all the land in the world. Name one asset class that is owned by more people in the world than real estate?

If you can just say 2 or 3 sentences that breaks down what you think this phrase means I will spend the time to read something about it, but suggesting a reader should just read ever wiki that he comes across in a thread is absurd and you know that.

I pretty much always look up anything I'm unfamiliar with that I see in a discussion I'm following, but whatever, you don't have to. I don't care if you're familiar with it or not.

he actually meant that , the way you think. Except at the local level.

Like the "monopoly" game which was created by a radical leftist feminist extremist who had read George (yes, true story).

https://time.com/6835666/monopoly-left-w...

She literally created the game to teach George ideas to the public (luckly, people quickly understood the thrill and pleasure is on the capitalist winning side :-) )

But in the end George ideas, while radical for the time (and even for the present, but for different reasons), weren't as bad as the soundbite would let you believe.

He just wanted to tax land, and land alone, INSTEAD of capital and labour.

That is more of what he thought was a practical way to address the problem, which is, that when there is no longer available land, the landless are trapped and inequality explodes. If there is open and free land, the worst life anyone can have is as a subsistence farmer. When there is not, it can be much worse.

Which wars did Biden start? I only know of one he ended.

How did george plan on dividing up the land? Let's say we have 330M people and we divide the country into 330M different plots... what happens in 5 (then 25 and 100 years) years when we have a few more million people - where does their land come from?

We have to split up everyone's land to account for more people which of course encourages people not to try to improve their land since they know parts of it could be taken from them. This would guarantee negative economic growth and a standard of living fall until this law is changed.

You went away!

he explains land can be private, you just need to tax it in full.

with "in full" he meant the entirety of the value accrued because of non-owner related events, and all the rent (of land, not development).

so a plot of land in a city would be taxed (100%) for all the value over the same plot of land where there is nothing.

for farm land, basically all the value you could get by simply owning it with no effort would be taxed at 100%. The entire value of the rent you could get giving undeveloped farm land to labourers would be sequestered by the state basically

nevermind accounting complexities, that's another topic, but the idea is clear.

for real estate in urban settings, reconstruction value would be deducted, all the rest of the value wouldn't be private basically.

Also, you wouldn't know shiit about standard of living.

bahbah think of some simple examples.

you own property in area x valued 100 at year 0. just land, undeveloped land (for simplicity).

think inflation is always 0 for simplicity.

the area becomes a city exurb, a company opens headquarters near there, for various reasons the land you own is now more valuable.

the ENTIRETY of that value (over 100) didn't depend on your actions, so for George the state can take all of that.

in other words owning land is worth nothing unless you develop it, in that model.

another example would be your great great grandfather owned land in NYC, you inherit the same value he put on it the day he bought it (with inflation)

I'm sure you don't want to read the book, but he not only goes into that he covers contemporary (to him) examples when there were large industrial mines that operated in Nevada where the "ownership" or right to use was only in effect as long as the mines were being used. This did not prevent investment and development.

The left needs to focus more on this. The idea that income/wealth and 'earned' are the same thing is a great con. We have to find a far better way to more closely align income/wealth with 'earned'. Doesn't have to be perfect, there can still be a healthy dollop of free market.

Rich people will so much more easily and happily have less to start with than hand back what they feel they have earned.

Legal Eagle spitting some truth about Truth Social.

I know it’s hard for you .
But since u already have a tough time to actually know how tax works work in a business I’m not surprise you have trouble here as well to get it .

but hey , I’m Sure when a billionaire gets a tax cut he do not get more money to spend huh ?

man have you ever played an online game with resource accumulation?

you can fully reset the ladder, putting everyone in the same identical position every x months, and invariably soon afterwards some people would be miles away of everyone else and the gap will get larger down the season.

because people are different and some people are better objectively, measurably, at any game, than others.

and the game of life isn't special in that regard.

you need constant daily violent sequester of all surplus to achieve what you aim for.

permanent state violence, or rifts will open up between the good players and the bad players in ANY game which is about resource accumulation and where farming (generating resources) is a function of previously accumulated resources.

Thats okay. I think we should change the rules of the game a bit.

barely even that.

This is interesting. Likely the case elsewhere, too, if small-town Oklahoma is doing it. The fringe right-wing trying to play the game lmao

I mean, I like to clown on Lucifer here as much as the next guy, but he does sometimes have a pretty undeniable point.

From a right wing perspective he certainly does.

Although it's nothing to do with daily sequesters violent or otherwise and the free market is not the only game in town.