Land Tax Should Be the Only Tax

you finish work, you pay income tax
you get in your car, you pay vehicle tax
you get gas, you pay gas tax
you buy something from the store, you pay sales tax
you go home, you pay property tax

If I included all the taxes from the company you worked for, the taxes all the way down the line for the products produced, the sales staff who takes the cash, the company they work at.... we'd be here all day.

but hey! the traffic light works and there's only 3 potholes on the road! money well spent!

... if you don't see the value in having a working traffic light system then for the love of God please sell your car and never drive again!!!

BWAHAHAHA

Land Tax Should Be the Only Tax
or
"Why do rich people create poverty?"

Which one then?

Rich people don't create poverty, the tax system does. By keeping land tax low enough to attract speculation, the price of land (cost of living) is kept as high as society can afford, keeping labor perpetually cheap.

By definition, rich depends on poor for contrast, otherwise the concept has no meaning.
What is well off is relative. There are people living in private homes on acres of areable land throughout the world that would rather live in a slum in NYC because even the poor here are richer than them lot there. Most people in America came from people like that.

Houses in areas with the highest real estate taxes are no less subject to speculation. In fact, they became that way because of it. The smallest, crappiest, ugliest house under the #4 Train El on Jerome Ave in the Bronx is worth more than most of the nicer ones in Oklahoma. And despite have far lower property taxes, Oklahomo's homes will continue to be far cheaper.

Poverty is a product of uneven wealth distribution, and that would be the result of a relative few making most of the money. As the masses lack the means to individually generate massive cash flow, they end up having less of it.
Taxes aren't the cause, but the result, determined by what citizens can afford relative to their level of wealth.

Oklahoma's*

The difference between land and labor is the basis of classical (scientific) economic theory. But "real estate" taxes include a tax on the land AND a tax on the structure. So, gauging the effect of land-only tax with a "real estate" tax is unscientific.

The masses lack equal access to land, their daily source of life. Instead, they have to pay investors like "rent cattle". Neo-capitalism is not free enterprise as explained by Adam Smith and the "laissez faire" economists. We have the same tax system aristocrats used which is why the "property ladder" is like feudalism.

EVEN WHEN TAXES ARE ZERO, that still happens!!!!

The problem isn't how much society is taxed, but what we are taxed on and what we are not.

See, you say that, but the size of the total revenue very much IS part of the problem-solving here!!!

Yes, that's true. But the key to efficiency is taxing for the use of resource instead of how much wealth people produce.

No, that is the exact opposite of taxation efficiency! Separating it from the amount that people actually make is inefficient by definition; small percentages of large amounts is more efficient than large percentages of small amounts.

Like, that's not opinion, that's just basic mathematics!!!

Your definition of efficiency is based on what will generate the most public revenue, not what will make the economy the most efficient. Efficiency means producing more with less, not just "producing more" regardless of the amount of waste generated.

If society exists only to fund government, yes, tax everything that moves. But if government exists to serve society, it should tax exclusively for the use of non-renewable natural resource (especially urban space-time).

No! That's efficiency of SPENDING. Efficiency of taxation is what I'M describing: even if we taxed land at 100%, you still would never beat a small tax on a large amount of other wealth. That's producing more revenue with fewer taxes - that's the definition of efficiency!!

What single-taxers recommend is only one tax, for land ownership. That's the fewest number of taxes - only one. That is not only the most efficient possible tax system, it's the fairest. And the reason is location is the main economic resource every human being uses since we have to sleep on land every day just to live. So, everyone needs the same "deal" (financial relationship) from the government when it comes to land. And while the waste of our most valuable non-renewable natural resource (space-time) will be discouraged, there will be no taxation of wealth creation, which will result in maximum wealth creation. BUT, it will not result in the maximum possible amount of public revenue because workers (wealth creators) will keep all their money. Maximum public revenue is achieved by treating us like serfs, which the current system does.

But it didn't work! Even if your one tax were cranked up all the way to 100%, you would never generate the revenue for the running costs of our society. It's an inefficient, low yield way of raising taxes.

And how is that fair? That we have to close down schools and hospitals just so that we can satisfy your ego on your junk tax theory? That doesn't seem fair to me at all!!!

Hey, I dunno, it'd be way fab n NYC with 2/3 of households being renters.

Of course, owners would sell and move to rentals and eventually the economic engine of the world will generate no tax revenue, but they were spiffy dressers in the Mad Max movies, so wear chaps for no tax sayeth I!