An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
And who needs them anyway? A land tax, for instance, is UNAVOIDABLE. Natural monopolies such as the road system and utility easements are other potential tax "choke points." Low cost nuclear power (thorium reactors) and water power are natural government monopolies.
But if government depends on its de facto monopoly on private money creation to tax then that tactic SHOULD fail since government should have no such monopoly.
"Low cost nuclear power (thorium reactors) and water power are natural government monopolies."
F - I am 110% supportive of thorium nuclear power, but my understanding is that the capital investment and land / space utilization required is on a scale that the private sector should be capable of undertaking. Am I mistaken? However, looking beyond thorium.... fusion is the ultimate goal and while I tend to be a small government, low tax Libertarian minded kind of guy, I can see why a lot more government support of thermonuclear fusion development is necessary. I would like to see an Apollo like project launched.
but my understanding is that the capital investment and land / space utilization required is on a scale that the private sector should be capable of undertaking. The Rombach Report
Nope. Not to do it as safely as required. Any revenues that go to profit could have gone to safety instead. We already see with medical insurance that the private sector puts profit over human lives.
Besides, high-capacity electric power generation appears to be a natural taxation "choke point."
If you are going to tax income, fairness requires that you tax the income in whatever form it takes. Dan Kervick
Well, before the Federal Reserve was established, an income tax was apparently not needed. And since an income tax might become impossible to collect fairly then Federal monopolies/taxes on fundamental necessities such as energy, water, land use, etc. might be a better way to go. Plus, rates (progressive, of course) could be adjusted as needed to control price inflation in fiat.
But how about we have a just society so that much less Federal spending is needed in the first place? So that far less taxation is needed to destroy purchasing power? We could start with a universal and equal bailout with new fiat at least until all deposits are 100% covered by reserves or even until all private debt to the banks is extinguished. Of course, further credit creation would have to be banned, at least temporarily, to maximize the amount of fiat that could be given away without significant price inflation risk.
5 comments:
Perhaps taxes that can be evaded are not good?
And who needs them anyway? A land tax, for instance, is UNAVOIDABLE. Natural monopolies such as the road system and utility easements are other potential tax "choke points." Low cost nuclear power (thorium reactors) and water power are natural government monopolies.
But if government depends on its de facto monopoly on private money creation to tax then that tactic SHOULD fail since government should have no such monopoly.
There is nothing new here. If you are going to tax income, fairness requires that you tax the income in whatever form it takes.
"Low cost nuclear power (thorium reactors) and water power are natural government monopolies."
F - I am 110% supportive of thorium nuclear power, but my understanding is that the capital investment and land / space utilization required is on a scale that the private sector should be capable of undertaking. Am I mistaken? However, looking beyond thorium.... fusion is the ultimate goal and while I tend to be a small government, low tax Libertarian minded kind of guy, I can see why a lot more government support of thermonuclear fusion development is necessary. I would like to see an Apollo like project launched.
but my understanding is that the capital investment and land / space utilization required is on a scale that the private sector should be capable of undertaking. The Rombach Report
Nope. Not to do it as safely as required. Any revenues that go to profit could have gone to safety instead. We already see with medical insurance that the private sector puts profit over human lives.
Besides, high-capacity electric power generation appears to be a natural taxation "choke point."
If you are going to tax income, fairness requires that you tax the income in whatever form it takes. Dan Kervick
Well, before the Federal Reserve was established, an income tax was apparently not needed. And since an income tax might become impossible to collect fairly then Federal monopolies/taxes on fundamental necessities such as energy, water, land use, etc. might be a better way to go. Plus, rates (progressive, of course) could be adjusted as needed to control price inflation in fiat.
But how about we have a just society so that much less Federal spending is needed in the first place? So that far less taxation is needed to destroy purchasing power? We could start with a universal and equal bailout with new fiat at least until all deposits are 100% covered by reserves or even until all private debt to the banks is extinguished. Of course, further credit creation would have to be banned, at least temporarily, to maximize the amount of fiat that could be given away without significant price inflation risk.
Post a Comment