Starve
Government
Georgists seek to reduce or eliminate a lot of the dumb taxes that government
currently uses to collect the revenue necessary to provide the services we
all depend on. But we don't necessarily seek to starve government.
We seek to reduce or eliminate taxes on buildings, on sales, on wages, while
at the same time increasing the revenue drawn from taxes on land value and
on other things that are like land, including the electromagnetic spectrum,
water rights, pollution rights, congestion charges, etc.
Many of us believe that if a society shifts its tax burden off buildings,
sales and wages and onto land value, many highly desirable things will happen,
including the reduction or abolition of poverty and the reversal of urban
sprawl. Each of these things will have highly positive ripple effects, which
are very likely to include a reduction in demand for some of the kinds of
services government now supplies, particularly to the poor. If we create
a society where poverty is the exception and prosperity the general norm,
many other social ills will disappear or be reduced to the point where they
are manageable.
Most of those who seek to "starve government" don't seem to
particularly care about
the effects of the services it provides on the lives of others. They
themselves generally know they can pay for the services they want for themselves,
and aren't all
that interested in how what might serve their own interests will affect
others. It
would be interesting to know how many of them have lived in a diverse
city, and how many of them choose to live in gated communities that are more
homogeneous.
I sometimes wonder whether the "starve government" folks truly
want to starve government, or merely don't understand that there is a viable
alternative
to the evils taxing income and sales. If one follows the precept of "never
ascribe to malice
that which can be adequately explained by stupidity," and considers
that few of our colleges or universities teach the ideas central to this
website,
one
may come up with a new understanding: it isn't that the starve-government
people are malicious or stupid,
it is that their education has been neglected!
A tax on land value does not burden productivity, but justly collects for
the purposes of common spending that which rightly belongs to the community!
I'm sure that this is something that Grover Norquist can enthusiastically
support.
Henry George: The Common Sense of Taxation (1881
article)
The true purposes of government are well stated in the preamble to the Constitution
of the United States, as they are in the Declaration of Independence. To
insure the general peace, to promote the general welfare, to secure to each
individual the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — these
are the proper ends of government, and are therefore the ends which in every
scheme of taxation should be kept in mind.
As to amount of taxation, there is no principle which imposes any arbitrary
limit. Heavy taxation is better for any community than light taxation, if
the increased revenue be used in doing by public agencies things which could
not be done, or could not be as well and economically done, by private agencies.
Taxes could be lightened in the city of New York by dispensing with street-lamps
and disbanding the police force. But would a reduction in taxation gained
in this way be for the benefit of the people of New York and make New York
a more desirable place to live in? Or if it should be found that heat and
light could be conducted through the streets at public expense and supplied
to each house at but a small fraction of the cost of supplying them by individual
effort, or that the city railroads could be run at public expense so as to
give every one transportation at very much less than it now costs the average
resident, the increased taxation necessary for these purposes would not be
increased burden, and in spite of the larger taxation required, New York
would become a more desirable place to live in. It is a mistake to condemn
taxation as bad merely because it is high; it is a mistake to impose by constitutional
provision, as in many of our States has been advocated, and in some of our
States has been done, any restriction upon the amount of taxation. A restriction
upon the incurring of public indebtedness is another matter. In nothing is
the far-reaching statesmanship of Jefferson more clearly shown than in his
proposition that all public obligations should be deemed void after a certain
brief term — a proposition which he grounds upon the self-evident truth
that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living, and that the dead have
no control over it, and can give no title to any part of it. But restriction
upon public debts is a very different thing from restriction upon the power
of taxation, and reasons which urge the one do not apply to the other. Nor
is increased taxation necessarily proof of governmental extravagance. Increase
in taxation is in the order of social development, for the reason that social
development tends to the doing of things collectively that in a ruder state
are done individually, to the giving to government of new functions and the
imposing of new duties. Our public schools and libraries and parks, our signal
service and fish commissions and agricultural bureaus and grasshopper investigations,
are evidences of this.
But while no limit can be properly fixed for the amount of taxation, the
method of taxation is of supreme importance. A horse may be anchored by fastening
to his bridle a weight which he will not feel when carried in a buggy behind
him. The best ship may be made utterly unseaworthy by the bad stowage of
a cargo which properly placed would make her the stiffer and more weatherly.
So enterprise may be palsied, industry crushed, accumulation prevented, and
a prosperous country turned into a desert, by taxation which rightly levied
would hardly be felt. ... read the whole article
H.G. Brown: Significant
Paragraphs from Henry George's Progress & Poverty:
10. Effect of Remedy Upon Wealth Production (in the unabridged P&P: Part
IX — Effects of the Remedy: Chapter 1 — Of the effect upon
the production of wealth)
The elder Mirabeau, we are told, ranked the proposition of Quesnay, to substitute
one single tax on rent (the impôt unique) for all other taxes,
as a discovery equal in utility to the invention of writing or the substitution
of the use of money for barter.
To whosoever will think over the matter, this saying will appear an evidence
of penetration rather than of extravagance. The advantages which would be gained
by substituting for the numerous taxes by which the public revenues are now
raised, a single tax levied upon the value of land, will appear more and more
important the more they are considered.
- This is the secret which would transform the little village into the
great city.*
- With all the burdens removed which now oppress industry and hamper exchange,
the production of wealth would go on with a rapidity now undreamed
of.
- This, in its turn, would lead to an increase in the value of land — a
new surplus which society might take for general purposes.
- And released from the difficulties which attend the collection of revenue
in a way that begets corruption and renders legislation the tool of special
interests, society could assume functions which the increasing complexity
of life makes it desirable to assume, but which the prospect of political
demoralization under the present system now leads thoughtful men to shrink
from.
*At the beginning of Book
IX of the complete Progress & Poverty, Henry George quotes from
Themistocles: "I cannot play upon any stringed instrument, but I
can tell you how of a little village to make a great and glorious city."
Consider the effect upon the production of wealth.
To abolish the taxation which, acting and reacting, now hampers every wheel
of exchange and presses upon every form of industry, would be like removing
an immense weight from a powerful spring. ... read
the whole chapter
Louis Post: Outlines of Louis F. Post's
Lectures, with Illustrative Notes and Charts (1894)
The shifting of indirect taxes is accomplished by means of their tendency
to increase the prices of commodities on which they fall. Their magnitude
and incidence 6 are thereby disguised. It was for this reason that a great
French economist of the last century denounced them as "a scheme for
so plucking geese as to get the most feathers with the least squawking."7
7. Though his language was blunt, the sentiment does not
essentially differ from that of "statesmen" of our day who
meet all the moral and economic objections to indirect taxation with
the one reply that the people would not consent to pay enough or the
support of government if public revenues were collected from them directly.
This means nothing but that the people are actually hoodwinked by indirect
taxation into sustaining a government that they would not support if
they knew it was maintained at their expense; and instead of being a
reason for continuing indirect taxation, would, if true, be one of the
strongest of reasons for abolishing it. It is consistent neither with
the plainest principles of democracy nor the simplest conceptions of
morality. ...
4. CONFORMITY TO GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION
The single tax conforms most closely to the essential principles of Adam
Smith's four classical maxims, which are stated best by Henry George 19 as
follows:
The best tax by which public revenues can be raised is evidently that which
will closest conform to the following conditions:
- That it bear as lightly as possible upon production — so as least
to check the increase of the general fund from which taxes must be paid
and the community maintained. 20
- That it be easily and cheaply collected, and fall as directly as may
be upon the ultimate payers — so as to take from the people as little
as possible in addition to what it yields the government. 21
- That it be certain — so as to give the least opportunity for tyranny
or corruption on the part of officials, and the least temptation to law-breaking
and evasion on the part of the tax-payers. 22
- That it bear equally — so as to give no citizen an advantage or
put any at a disadvantage, as compared with others. 23
19. "Progress and Poverty," book viii. ch.iii.
20. This is the second part of Adam Smith's fourth maxim.
He states it as follows: "Every tax ought to be so contrived as
both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little
as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of
the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the pockets of the
people a great deal more than it brings into the public treasury in the
four following ways: . . . Secondly, it may obstruct the industry of
the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of
business which might give maintenance and employment to great multitudes.
While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish or perhaps destroy
some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so."
21. This is the first part of Adam Smith's fourth maxim,
in which he condemns a tax that takes out of the pockets of the people
more than it brings into the public treasury.
22. This is Adam Smith's second maxim. He states it as
follows: "The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to
be certain and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment,
the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor
and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject
to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax gatherer."
23. This is Adam Smith's first maxim. He states it as
follows: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards
the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to
their respective abilities, that is to say, in proportion to the revenue
which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The
expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the
expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are
all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests
in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what
is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
In changing this Mr. George says ("Progress
and Poverty," book viii, ch. iii, subd. 4): "Adam Smith
speaks of incomes as enjoyed 'under the protection of the state'; and
this is the ground upon which the equal taxation of all species of
property is commonly insisted upon — that it is equally protected
by the state. The basis of this idea is evidently that the enjoyment
of property is made possible by the state — that there is a value
created and maintained by the community; which is justly called upon
to meet community expenses. Now, of what values is this true? Only
of the value of land. This is a value that does not arise until a community
is formed, and that, unlike other values, grows with the growth of
the community. It only exists as the community exists. Scatter again
the largest community, and land, now so valuable, would have no value
at all. With every increase of population the value of land rises;
with every decrease it falls. This is true of nothing else save of
things which, like the ownership of land, are in their nature monopolies."
Adam Smith's third maxim refers only to conveniency of
payment, and gives countenance to indirect taxation, which is in conflict
with the principle of his fourth maxim. Mr. George properly excludes
it.
a. Interference with Production
Indirect taxes tend to check production and cause scarcity, by obstructing
the processes of production. They fall upon men as they work, as they
do business, as they invest capital productively. 24 But the single
tax, which must be paid and be the same in amount regardless of whether the
payer works or plays, of whether he invests his capital productively or wastes
it, of whether he uses his land for the most productive purposes 25 or in lesser
degree or not at all, removes fiscal penalties from industry and thrift, and
tends to leave production free. It therefore conforms more closely than indirect
taxation to the first maxim quoted above.
24. "Taxation which falls upon the processes of production
interposes an artificial obstacle to the creation of wealth. Taxation
which falls upon labor as it is exerted, wealth as it is used as capital,
land as it is cultivated, will manifestly tend to discourage production
much more powerfully than taxation to the same amount levied upon laborers
whether they work or play, upon wealth whether used productively or unproductively,
or upon land whether cultivated or left waste" — Progress
and Poverty, book viii, ch. iii, subd. I.
25. It is common, besides taxing improvements, as fast
as they are made, to levy higher taxes upon land when put to its best
use than when put to partial use or to no use at all. This is upon the
theory that when his land is used the owner gets full income from it
and can afford to pay high taxes; but that he gets little or no income
when the land is out of use, and so cannot afford to pay much. It is
an absurd but perfectly legitimate illustration of the pretentious doctrine
of taxation according to ability to pay.
Examples are numerous. Improved building lots, and even
those that are only plotted for improvement, are usually taxed more than
contiguous unused and unplotted land which is equally in demand for building
purposes and equally valuable. So coal land, iron land, oil land, and
sugar land are as a rule taxed less as land when opened up for appropriate
use than when lying idle or put to inferior uses, though the land value
be the same. Any serious proposal to put land to its appropriate use
is commonly regarded as a signal for increasing the tax upon it.
b. Cheapness of Collection
Indirect taxes are passed along from first payers to final consumers through
many exchanges, accumulating compound profits as they go, until they take
enormous sums from the people in addition to what the government receives.26
But the single tax takes nothing from the people in excess of the tax. It
therefore conforms more closely than indirect taxation to the second maxim
quoted above.
26. "All taxes upon things of unfixed quantity increase
prices, and in the course of exchange are shifted from seller to buyer,
increasing as they go. If we impose a tax on money loaned, as has been
often attempted, the lender will charge the tax to the borrower, and
the borrower must pay it or not obtain the loan. If the borrower uses
it in his business, he in his turn must get back the tax from his customers,
or his business becomes unprofitable. If we impose a tax upon buildings,
the users of buildings must finally pay it, for the erection of buildings
will cease until building rents become high enough to pay the regular
profit and the tax besides. If we impose a tax upon manufactures or imported
goods, the manufacturer or importer will charge it in a higher price
to the jobber, the jobber to the retailer. and the retailer to the consumer.
Now, the consumer, on whom the tax thus ultimately falls, must not only
pay the amount of the tax, but also a profit on this amount to everyone
who has thus advanced it — for profit on the capital he has advanced
in paying taxes is as much required by each dealer as profit on the capital
he has advanced in paying for goods." — Progress and Poverty,
book viii, ch. iii, subd. 2.
c. Certainty
No other tax, direct or indirect, conforms so closely to the third maxim. "Land
lies out of doors." It cannot be hidden; it cannot be "accidentally" overlooked.
Nor can its value be seriously misstated. Neither under-appraisement nor
over-appraisement to any important degree is possible without the connivance
of the whole community. 27 The land values of a neighborhood are matters
of common knowledge. Any intelligent resident can justly appraise them, and
every other intelligent resident can fairly test the appraisement. Therefore,
the tyranny, corruption, fraud, favoritism, and evasions that are so common
in connection with the taxation of imports, manufactures, incomes, personal
property, and buildings — the values of which, even when the object
itself cannot be hidden, are so distinctly matters of minute special knowledge
that only experts can fairly appraise them — would be out of the question
if the single tax were substituted for existing fiscal methods. 28
27. The under-appraisements so common at present, and
alluded to in note 25, are possible because the community, ignorant of
the just principles of taxation, does connive at them. Under-appraisements
are not secret crimes on the part of assessors; they are distinctly recognized,
but thoughtlessly disregarded when not actually insisted upon, by the
people themselves. And this is due to the dishonest ideas of taxation
that are taught. Let the vicious doctrine that people ought to pay taxes
according to their ability give way to the honest principle that they
should pay in proportion to the benefits they receive, which benefits,
as we have already seen, are measured by the land values they own, and
underappraisement of land would cease. No assessor can befool the community
in respect of the value of the land within his jurisdiction.
And, with the cessation of general under-appraisement,
favoritism in individual appraisements also would cease. General under-appraisement
fosters unfair individual appraisements. If land were generally appraised
at its full value, a particular unfair appraisement would stand out in
such relief that the crime of the assessor would be exposed. But now
if a man's land is appraised at a higher valuation than his neighbor's
equally valuable land, and he complains of the unfairness, he is promptly
and effectually silenced with a warning that his land is worth much more
than it is appraised at, anyhow, and if he makes a fuss his appraisement
will be increased. To complain further of the deficient taxation of his
neighbor is to invite the imposition of a higher tax upon himself.
28. If you wish to test the merits in point of certainty
of the single tax as compared with other taxes, go to a real estate agent
in your community, and, showing him a building lot upon the map, ask
him its value. If he inquires about the improvements, instruct him to
ignore them. He will be able at once to tell you what the lot is worth.
And if you go to twenty other agents their estimates will not materially
vary from his. Yet none of the agents will have left his office. Each
will have inferred the value from the size and location of the lot.
But suppose when you show the map to the first agent you
ask him the value of the land and its improvements. He will tell you
that he cannot give an estimate until he examines the improvements. And
if it is the highly improved property of a rich man he will engage building
experts to assist him. Should you ask him to include the value of the
contents of the buildings, he would need a corps of selected experts,
including artists and liverymen, dealers in furniture and bric-a-brac,
librarians and jewelers. Should you propose that he also include the
value of the occupant's income, the agent would throw up his hands in
despair.
If without the aid of an army of experts the agent should
make an estimate of these miscellaneous values, and twenty others should
do the same, their several estimates would be as wide apart as ignorant
guesses usually are. And the richer the owner of the property the lower
as a proportion would the guesses probably be.
Now turn the real estate agent into an assessor, and is
it not plain that he would appraise the land values with much greater
certainty and cheapness than he could appraise the values of all kinds
of property? With a plot map before him he might fairly make every appraisement
without leaving his desk at the town hall.
And there would be no material difference if the property
in question were a farm instead of a building lot. A competent farmer
or business man in a farming community can, without leaving his own door-yard,
appraise the value of the land of any farm there; whereas it would be
impossible for him to value the improvements, stock, produce, etc., without
at least inspecting them.
d. Equality
In respect of the fourth maxim the single tax bears more equally— that
is to say, more justly — than any other tax. It is the only tax that
falls upon the taxpayer in proportion to the pecuniary benefits he receives
from the public; 29 and its tendency, accelerating with the increase of the
tax, is to leave every one the full fruit of his own productive enterprise
and effort. 30
29 The benefits of government are not the only public
benefits whose value attaches exclusively to land. Communal development
from whatever cause produces the same effect. But as it is under the
protection of government that land-owners are able to maintain ownership
of land and through that to enjoy the pecuniary benefits of advancing
social conditions, government confers upon them as a class not only the
pecuniary benefits of good government but also the pecuniary benefits
of progress in general.
30. "Here are two men of equal incomes — that
of the one derived from the exertion of his labor, that of the other
from the rent of land. Is it just that they should equally contribute
to the expenses of the state? Evidently not. The income of the one represents
wealth he creates and adds to the general wealth of the state; the income
of the other represents merely wealth that he takes from the general
stock, returning nothing." — Progress and Poverty, book
viii, ch. iii, subd. 4.
... read the book
Bill Batt: The
Fallacy of the "Three-Legged Stool" Metaphor
Contemporary economists and
conventional tax theorists well recognize
that taxing Labor and Capital is detrimental to economic vitality — politicians
thrive on repeating this ad
nauseam. Currently the Republican party candidates seem
best able to exploit resentment about the negative impact of
taxes. But they are not alone in failing to appreciate the nature
of tax shifting. What all fail to realize is that there are
notable exceptions to the rule that taxes are oppressive: any tax
imposed on an inelastic base -- that is, any form of Land --
constitutes no distortion or excess burden whatsoever.
Far from
spreading the burden of distribution over a wide array of tax
bases, the ideal tax, then, should be imposed solely on those factors
of production that form an inelastic base, i.e., that constitute forms
of Land -- whether they be locational sites, natural resources, the
spectrum, time slots, or others as they may arise in the future.
Land, in any of its forms, is totally inelastic. Will Rogers in
his pithy way said it well, "Buy land. They ain't making any more
of the stuff." Mark Twain said it too. Read the whole article
Mason Gaffney: Land as a
Distinctive Factor of Production
Land normally does not
depreciate as a function of time. Most
attributes of land also withstand use and abuse. Most land is,
rather, expected to appreciate in real value in the long run.
Values go in cycles, but the secular history is upwards as population,
capital, and demands all grow while land remains fixed. Capital
has
a period of formation during which it accretes value by storing up
other
inputs and changing physical form, but that is a phase. Once
formed, almost all capital fails with time.
Perhaps the most durable capital is intellectual, like the
writings of
Plato. These, however, do not endure generations without the
continual human effort and expense of education. As schools
starve
and libraries close, it is sadly certain that much will be lost.
Under any conditions much is twisted in transmission, like classical
economics itself. ...
It follows that the demand for land arises over time with
incomes, but
faster than incomes. ... Read the whole article
Alanna Hartzok: Who Would
Jesus
Tax? The Saga of Susan Pace Hamill's Alabama Tax Crusade
A University of Alabama School of Law Professor has asked God's
forgiveness for the years she lived in the sin of ignorance about tax
injustice. Susan Pace Hamill, a tax expert, business consultant, and
dedicated United Methodist church goer, thought there was a misprint
when she first read that personal incomes as low as $4,600 for a family
of four were being taxed by the state, while timber owners holding 71%
of the land of Alabama were paying less than $1 per acre in property
taxes. Two hours later she found out there had been no mistake and that
Alabama has the most regressive tax code in the country. Her righteous
rage spawned a tax crusade that has reverberated onto the national
scene.
"As somebody who knows a lot about taxes, I could not have imagined a
design of a tax structure this bad," she said in a Tuscaloosa News
story last February. "The state's tax code is really horribly unjust
and has no moral, ethical leg to stand on. Period."
Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes
in state and local taxes while those who make over $229,000 pay just
4.1 percent. Commercial property owners pay more than 50 percent of
property taxes, with homes approaching one-third. Alabama's sales taxes
are among the highest in the nation, up to 10 percent in some areas,
and do not exempt even the most basic necessities such as food. The
state's 1901 constitution was written primarily by large landholders to
secure their economic interests, consequently property taxes are
extremely light on their holdings. ...
"Alabama's tax system is most abusive because it taxes items like milk,
yet offers tax breaks for certain farm products," she said in a
Huntsville Times (3/26/03) interview. "It's also unfair to allow
timberland (which Hamill found out accounts for 71 percent of Alabama
land) to generate only two percent of all state property taxes."
While resoundingly condemning the current system (she uses words like
"horrific" and "monstrous injustice") Hamill clearly articulates a tax
reform approach which shifts taxes off of low wage earners and onto
large land owners. Through a combination of her own reasoning, caring
heart, and inherent sense of justice and a thorough investigation of
Judeo-Christian ethics, Hamill arrived at a tax policy approach which
bears remarkable similarities to the economic justice crusades of 19th
century reformer, Henry George.
Her appeal is to the 93 percent of Alabama residents who call
themselves Christians. Hamill challenges them to put their faith into
practice. Her message fell on many already listening ears. The state's
two largest denominations, United Methodists and Southern Baptists, had
passed resolutions favoring tax reform in 2000. In 2001 the state's
Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Catholics approved similar calls. The
Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama and the Business Council of
Alabama had long clamored for tax change. In fact, tax reform is now
supported by most of the state's religious organizations, according to
Charles Durham, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Tuscaloosa.
What makes Hamill's work so compelling is her deep grasp of the Alabama
tax code combined with her thorough documentation of the scriptural
bases for economic justice. She quotes chapters and verses which
proclaim that the poor should not be oppressed and that society should
create conditions for their advance. Among her favorites are Jesus'
words in Matthew 25:45: "Whatever you did not do for one of the least
of these, you did not do for me." Luke 16:19-31 is a parable of a rich
man sent to hell because of his indifference to the disadvantaged and
in Jeremiah 22:15-16, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and
so all went well." ...
Riley's tax plan, inspired in large measure by Hamill's prophetic tax
justice ministry, would bring in an additional $1.2 billion in revenue
while raising the income threshold at which families of four start
paying taxes from the current $4,600 a year to more than $17,000,
scrapping the federal income tax deduction, and increasing exemptions
for dependent children. It would give property tax breaks to small
family farms, while costing millions to the state's 500 or so farms and
timber tracts with more than 2,000 acres each, which includes companies
like Weyerhaeuser and Boise Cascade, which own hundreds of thousands of
acres.
"I've spent a lot of time studying the New Testament and it has three
philosophies: love God, love each other, and take care of the least
among you," said Riley (New York Times, 6/10/03, "What Would Jesus Do?
Sock It to Alabama's Corporate Landowners")
Unfortunately, Alabama voters overwhelmingly voted against the plan on
September 9, 2003. Some said that the poor did not trust the Republican
tax relief plan and the rich had solidly organized against it.
Opponents made hay out of the proposed sales tax increase on
cigarettes, cars and lawn mowers and services like car repairs in a
state where sales taxes already reach 11% in some areas. ... read the whole article
Some of those who advocate starving government are troubled by the
things on which the federal government spends our money. They
seek to fix the problem by cutting off the flow of funds. Many of us
suspect that the kinds of spending they would choose to cut are not things we
see as option.
Here's another point of view:
Jeff Smith: Leaking Economic
Value of Communities
Wearing pajamas outdoors in the
winter, one wouldn’t expect
to retain body heat. Yet, people do try to sustain community while
hemorrhaging its commonwealth. Losing it, residents must work more
than necessary.
When residents import food and
energy, they deprive others in the
community of income. Yet, the loss pales when compared to paying
mortgages and [income] taxes. A recent
study of Oakland, CA found torrents of dollars pumped out of town
headed for the treasuries of distant capitols and the bank vaults of
distant lenders.
While mortgages and interest
elevate an elite elsewhere, they keep
debtors on a treadmill at home. To those anxious over every next
payment, how appealing is an economy no longer expanding its girth?
In addition, what’s their debt for? Credit? The total savings of
all members of a community should suffice. Local bank "used to" be
the norm.
The other major
drain, taxes, at about 40% of the average
worker’s income, usually total more than the value of government
services received. And who receives them? Corporate loggers, miners,
factory farms, and tractor trailers. Lose such subsidies, leveling
the playing field, and local recyclers, family farmers, and freight
haulers could compete. Their success would plug the visible leaks -
imported food, energy, and materials.
While
a community might not be able to command a distant capitol
to turn off the subsidies, a locality may be able to avoid federal
and state taxes. ... Read the whole article
|
To
share this page with a friend: right click, choose "send," and
add your comments.
|
|
Red
links have not been visited; .
Green
links are pages you've seen |
Essential Documents
pertinent to this theme:
|
|