Your argument of capitalism exploiting labor through usury requires a rather vivid imagination and an ability to distort facts to fit reality that I simply don’t possess. Furthermore, to me, it just seems nonsensical and reeks of marxist undertones. And you are wrong about me financing the property. I bought my share of the property for cash from a former partner.
Your statement about lending without risk is false. Lending without risk is impossible. There is always risk to lending or to any other investment for that matter.
So let me summarize:
You were incorrect about there being no risk to real estate
You were incorrect about banks having no risk
You were incorrect about lending having no risk
You were incorrect about me financing an investment real estate purchase
You may be right about usury though, at least according to the definition that you’re using, which is admittedly different from the definition that our legal system uses. I’m not sure. Don’t some theocratic countries ban usury? I could be wrong here so someone please correct me if I am. Somehow, I haven’t seen that particular practice leading to a country which is more economically healthy and benevolent to its citizens than a country that doesn’t follow that practice nor do I see the absence of exploitation of labor in those countries. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I think one obvious problem with the fairtax – mentioned in the wiki – is if we pass it without repealing the 16th Amendment (which was in fact probably never passed, just fraudulently declared to have passed… See “The Law that never was”. That said, the evidence was confirmable while the author was held in prison without admission of evidence allowed. As of when he was let out, I’d hazard a guess it probably no longer can be confirmed).
A second major problem is belling the cat.
A third major problem is that the most just use of government is protection of life and property; therefore the most just payment to cover the costs is a combination of time donated, and tax on property. The fair tax still unfairly penalizes those who earn, and benefits those who possess.
A fourth major problem is that in rebating to the level of poverty, it actually creates a drive to entrap the biggest possible population within poverty.
I’m happy to discuss ways of addressing any of the above problems. But…
MY ALTERNATIVE
My favorite version of a fair tax would be that the government refuses to protect any property that is not declared, along with a value; if a value is declared, the owner also inherently is declaring that another individual may put up ten percent more than the declared value, and buy the property for themselves. But then the tax rate is a constant rate on declared value.
So if you want your car, your house, your stocks and bonds, your real estate, your gold protected, you declare it and pay tax on it. If you think your protections that you arrange yourself are good enough, or if you feel it doesn’t need protection (your rhododendrons in flower pots out front), then you don’t declare it.
Most poor peoples’ stuff won’t be declared. And they’ll pay no tax on it.
So my tax would be truly voluntary; require no enforcement; and be simpler and less regressive. It also would put the greatest penalty (in its inherent nature) on usurers, and those who simply sit on assets unused.
We are so past usury it ain’t funny no’mo. Might as well ban Bad People while we’re at it, oh wait that didn’t work either. What a predicament!
Below please find current status as real estate tycoon.
