Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "Whatifalthist"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronanKGelhaus then vote for government with good spending platforms. But I would say that's the opposite of true. Governments will happily tax you into the ground, investors won't happily give their money to a government that won't repay it. Countries see debt purchases dry up all the time.
No businessman or CEO would ever suggest a debt limit for a company, leveraging debt is just good economics, and that's true in government as well. Debt is cheap and capital is expensive, and the same is true for taxes.
-taxes have collections costs at something like 3% of revenue
-taxes distort the economy
-taxes force costs on businesses for accounting
-debt is always taking money from the stupidest person with the least clue of how to invest it, which is why they let someone else do it for a lower rate of return
-debt is always a voluntary exchange
I'd agree to a debt to GDP or debt to Government revenue cap. But as long as government policy is accommodating economic growth and growth in government revenues, I'm happy to see borrowing increase to drive that growth.
As for a land value tax, I'll give you that rich people will game the system, but I hardly think that is unique. It's not like any other tax isn't abused in a way that the rich end up with bigger houses.
But to the smaller houses part, that's not true. Let me ask, if you were going to buy a lot for 1 million dollars, but then I told you you would have to pay 1000 dollars a month for owning it, would you still pay 1 million? Of course not, you would pay less so that you found an equilibrium price where you end up paying the same amount over time. And if you're paying the same amount overall, it doesn't change how you were going to use that land. That's the whole point and the reason everyone from Hayek to Smith to Friedman agreed it was the best for of government revenue, it doesn't affect what anyone actually does, it just lowers the upfront cost of land in exchange for higher ongoing costs.
It also makes it impossible for land Lords to stay rich just owning land, because they have that ongoing payment to make. It does the opposite of putting all the land into the hands of the rich, which you may notice, is happening quite readily already without an LVT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertbobbypelletreaujr2173 it's remarkable to me this doesn't seem to have happened when the USSR fell apart. The number of countries to come out of it, some like Ukraine having every reason to want them for the political power or Lithuania to ensure they don't get invaded, or Turkmenistan to resell, and none seeming to have done so is incredible. At the same time, the gross government corruption, between oligarchs stealing anything of value and generals selling it to them, and nothing displaced in movement. Likewise, South Africa got rid of all of them before handing over power.
I'm not suggesting that means a collapsed America will return all nukes to the independent nation of New England, but it's very interesting. Clearly people takes nukes is taken seriously even in a worse case scenario.
I'm not sure the risk of aging weapons. I think the triggers tend to break first, meaning they are not a sudden boom risk, more of a dirty bomb risk if just forgten. But I may be wrong.
1