Libertarian RMB

WA Delegate: The Confederation of Paul Marks (elected )

Founder: Whipjangle

BoardActivity History Admin Rank

Lowest Overall Tax Burden: 327th Rudest Citizens: 629th Largest Pizza Delivery Sector: 712th+15
Largest Soda Pop Sector: 798th Highest Crime Rates: 1,000th Fattest Citizens: 1,086th Nudest: 1,092nd Highest Economic Output: 1,141st Most Rebellious Youth: 1,235th Most Armed: 1,253rd Largest Retail Industry: 1,258th Most World Assembly Endorsements: 1,284th Most Nations: 1,312th Highest Wealthy Incomes: 1,403rd Largest Gambling Industry: 1,492nd Largest Trout Fishing Sector: 1,586th Largest Populations: 1,719th Greatest Rich-Poor Divides: 1,871st
World Factbook Entry

Visit a region where you can gain the benefit of a small group of like minded players, but with no other restrictions, where your rights end at the tip of the other guy's nose and where smaller government is better government, and no government may be best of all.


Embassies: Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, The Red Fleet, USSF, The Mystical Council, Libertarian Capitalist Zone 716, Benevolent Capitalism, Peoples Federation of Qandaristan, Dill Country, The Jedi Council, and ACA.

Tags: Social, Libertarian, Founderless, Featured, Password, Liberal, Casual, Conservative, Small, and Serious.

Libertarian contains 10 nations, the 1,312th most in the world.

Password required

Today's World Census Report

The Highest Unexpected Death Rate in libertarian

The World Census paid their respects at cemeteries in order to determine how likely citizens were to die each year from unnatural causes, such as crime, preventable illness, accident, and government encouragement.

As a region, libertarian is ranked 2,155th in the world for Highest Unexpected Death Rate.

NationWA CategoryMotto

Regional Happenings

More...

Libertarian Regional Message Board

It is too late to prevent a bust now (it was too late years ago) - the point now is how governments react to the bust.

I think that BOTH Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump would react to a bust the same way that Herbert "The Forgotten Progressive" Hoover did - more (not less) government spending and more (not less) government interventionism

Both Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump would turn the crash into a second Great Depression.

Trouble at the Ford Motor Company - yet another sign of the decline of American manufacturing industry, but both Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump see government as the solution. Actually Big Government interventionism is the problem.

perhaps, but my view is the next crash is the next depression. interest rates can not lower. govt spending across the world is already mostly in deficit. it kind of is irrelevant who the president is.
why do you comment on ford? a quick news google search says they made 2 billion in Q2 2016.

Paul Marks

The Council of FJK Rants wrote:perhaps, but my view is the next crash is the next depression. interest rates can not lower. govt spending across the world is already mostly in deficit. it kind of is irrelevant who the president is.
why do you comment on ford? a quick news google search says they made 2 billion in Q2 2016.


I agree that the next crash will lead to a Great Depression - although some towns and cities in the United States are already in a terrible state (which explains the Trump thing).

I mentioned Ford not because it is badly run (it is not) - but because there were stories at the time I wrote that its sales were hitting severe problems.

Although, yes, it is not "demand" that is the problem - it is the basic Capital Structure of the economy that is hopelessly twisted and distorted.

I hear ya.
I do have hope though.
The easiest way to increase demand is remove income from the rich, and give it to the poor.
This would increase consumption a great deal.
Got to ask, why are the low income bands taxed? Seems evil.
also, why is wealth not taxed? i am thinking house property. seems a big source of tax on a consumption item. perhaps a better way to move investment to better asset.

The Council of FJK Rants wrote:I hear ya.
I do have hope though.
The easiest way to increase demand is remove income from the rich, and give it to the poor.
This would increase consumption a great deal.
Got to ask, why are the low income bands taxed? Seems evil.
also, why is wealth not taxed? i am thinking house property. seems a big source of tax on a consumption item. perhaps a better way to move investment to better asset.


I do not agree with government action to "increase consumption" - I do not believe that Keynes refuted Say's Law, I think (along with the late Henry Haziitt and W.H. Hutt) that Keynes misstated Say's Law and then "refuted" his own misstatement.

As for Wealth Taxes - they have been tried and create a total mess.

i am sure wealth taxes have been used awfully, but the example i can think of is hong kong, with zero income tax, and only a 7.5% tax on property when it is sold, 15% for foreigners.
they appear to be going ok.

The Council of FJK Rants wrote:hong kong, with zero income tax, and only a 7.5% tax on property when it is sold, 15% for foreigners.
they appear to be going ok.


That sounds pretty reasonable, at least when compared to the US's current system! Involuntary taxes are inherently immoral, but if gov'ments gonna tax (and you know they will), at least they can keep them low and uncomplicated.

The Council of FJK Rants wrote:i am sure wealth taxes have been used awfully, but the example i can think of is hong kong, with zero income tax, and only a 7.5% tax on property when it is sold, 15% for foreigners.
they appear to be going ok.


That is more like a sales tax or a Capital Gains Tax than a Wealth Tax - a Wealth Tax hits the owners of properties (or anything) whether they have much ready cash or not - it is basically a way of making families sell their business enterprises (to get the money to pay the wealth tax) it would, for example, hit family farms hard.

I do not know who told you that Hong Kong does not have an income tax - it does have one. The system of taxation you seem to be describing is close to that the island of Sark used to have - a tax on inheritance and the sale of property, and nothing else.

The key thing about Hong Kong (thanks to Financial Secretary Cowperthwait back in the 1950s and 1960s) is that its government SPENDING is very low and its REGULATION is limited. Just changing the taxation system in the United States, whilst leaving the wild level of government spending and insane level of regulation in place, would achieve little.

However, moving Federal taxation from income and profits to SALES (not property - SALES) would mean that imports were taxed the same as domestic producers - which would shoot the fox of Mr Trump.

Taxing property is fine (ish) if only property owners have the vote - but that has not been true in Western countries for a long time. Hong Kong does not have universal voting.

One advantage of a Sales Tax is that all voters (and all immigrants - including illegal ones) pay it.

How can Texas afford illegals more than California can? Because Texas relies on the Sales Tax - California relies more on taxing incomes, especially high incomes, and Capital Gains. Illegals do not tend to pay the taxes that California relies upon.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics