That’s very true about communism.
Seems that there is another flaw. What if the wealthy live modestly in regular neighborhoods and normal homes? They would then pay ‘only’ regular tax rates. Not sure how it is in Canada, but here in the US that would bankrupt the nation. The top 10% of the income earners here pay more than 50% of the total tax collected by the government.
Yes I believe in minimalist government. Not enough to fund the government? Good riddance
I can’t reconcile your statement above, with the one below.
They seem mutually exclusive of each other.Yes I believe in minimalist government. Not enough to fund the government? Good riddance
Natural resources - for the good of all, like socialism
Farms are typically mortgaged, and so they’re essentially paying rent to the bank for the use of their land. In this system, they’d be paying that rent to the government. The cost would be about the same, so it shouldn’t hurt farmers. I don’t think it would change land use much, actually.
Anyone who reads these threads sees that it is the people who do not risk their life savings to start businesses, work 80 hours a week to build them up, and provide the jobs the rest of us need are the ones who complain about those who do.
How do you extract the “natural resources” without the government owning, operating the private resources? For example OIL. Canada is a major oil producing company. The oil would be “owned” by Canada. Logically it would own the extraction equipment? The pipelines? The distribution? The refining? The retail distribution? The retail sales outlets? Where does it stop?
The farms around me are family owned and typically passed from father to son to grandson. Yes, some are mortgaged, but as I live in the heart of farm country, and some of my property is farmed (but not by me) what I see is that many of the ‘mortgages’ seem to be short term and used for big equipment purchases. If the farmer is “renting” the land, what would he use a collateral when trying to get a loan for a $100,000 tractor or a $250,000 combine?
Vern to you I say AMEN. I own several small businesses. 1 is outright losing me money. 2 are getting close to break even. It can take a year of losing money to get to break even before a small retail store begins to make money. In the mean time I am paying employees, taxes, rent, utilities on these locations. If people think it is easy, or stress free, then I too encourage them to risk everything and follow their dreams by opening a business, employing others, and by all means go join the country club, take 3 weeks of vacation in a row and sleep in late and go home early too
The government could simply demand payment for any oil extracted. I think it already does get revenue from oil. It’s not really as revolutionary as it sounds… it’s just a matter of shifting the burden of social programs away from the ‘fruit of people’s labour’ and onto the fruits of God’s creation. In this way God is providing for the poor, rather than taking away other people’s incomes to provide for the poor.
I suspect they could finance a tractor much like regular people finance a car… the machinery would be the collateral.
No, see, the crops are the product of the farmer’s labour. No one else has a right to take that from him. He didn’t make the land, but he works it and gets the crops. In return for being allowed to use the land, he has to pay to society (through the government).
That is a good description of the CURRENT private/capitalistic system. But you said the government owned the resources.
I suspect that is too simplistic. Most people who finance a car have an income producing job in addition to the value of the car. Farmers don’t get any income until the end of the season when they sell their crop, they are often borrowing money during part of the year waiting for their crops to come in. So if they don’t own the land and don’t have collateral from that, and they don’t have regular income, and in bad years they need to borrow just to eat, then I suspect they would be very risky to lend $250,000 to for a new combine!
Would they not already have those building mortgaged? Most banks won’t give you a loan on something that is already mortgaged.
Well, I think the definition of ownership is hard to pin down. We say that in the current system we ‘own’ our land… but the government insists that if we don’t pay them money every year basedon the value of our land, they’ll take it away and sell it to someone else. How is that different from renting the land? That’s exactly what you do when you rent… you pay someone else money to use it, and if you stop paying, they take it away. As far as I’m concerned, the government already has at least partial ownership of our real estate.
If the farmers can’t afford to make a living on the land, they’d stop renting it, and the government would lose out on the revenue. They’ll have to make it a reasonable price.
Even if they made the rent $0.00 the farmers would not have collateral in the land.
Well… if farming is as lousy of a business as people make it out to be, then their land is worthless anyway and wouldn’t have any use as collateral.
Sorry but you are using faulty logic. Land has its value and that value may be completely independent of the intended use. For example rich Indiana farmland located near a population base can be used for farming. Or it can, because of its location and proximity to a population base be used for retail, commercial or other purposes.
I think you’re right, the terminology I’m using isn’t correct, and no one would want to build a house on land they didn’t own. The government could charge land tax equivalent to free-market rent, but still give you the right to stay on the land in your house as long as you want, and transfer it to another person who you sell the house… I guess thats a far cry from saying “the state would own all the land” like I did in the original post.