JohnRawls wrote:What wrong things?
Any tax is a tax on people because we are the consumers of any good.
No. Any tax is a tax on people -- SOME people -- because people are ultimately the only entities that can have anything to pay a tax with, not because we are the consumers of any good. Being the consumers of a good only incurs a tax liability when consumption of that good incurs a direct or indirect tax liability. You just refuse to know the fact that not all taxes impose such burdens on consumption.
The tax burder can touch certain parts of the population if they are targeted to do that.
No. All taxes burden certain sectors of the population more than others, but this (putatively at least) has little to do with conscious targeting.
Currently all American higher classes(Lets make it really broad, top 5%) pay a lot less then the middle class(80%) or even lower taxes then the lower class(15%).
Top 5% in what? Income? You're already wrong.
Pay less measured how? As a fraction of income? You're already wrong.
So the tax system in america is severely unfair to the middle and lower classes.
It is indeed. But not for the reasons you imagine.
There is no perfect solution to balance a budget
Sure there is: justice.
without either increasing taxes or hatchetting a significant portion of state expenditure. ( Lets say chop off all military spending and medicare etc etc )
Wrong again. The budget could easily be balanced if government were not required to give away all the value it creates through expenditures on desirable services and infrastructure to rich, greedy, privileged parasites. Google "Henry George Theorem" and start reading.
The land doesn't need to move offshore to escape taxes.
Yes, it does, and it can't.
There are plenty of ways to dodge taxes in the US.
But not a tax on the unimproved value of land. That's why the rich, greedy, and privileged will not permit it.
Most people who deal in this field know about them long-long ago but only make a show about.
Only if they can change the tax to not be a tax on the unimproved value of land.
In reality the Double Irish Sandwich is still good along with the Dutch double Irish sandwitch.
Nope. You are just objectively wrong as a matter of objective physical fact. Such maneuvers are absolutely ineffective against a tax on the unimproved value of land.
The laughable thing about it is that it has been going on for so long that nobody seems to care anymore. Technically it won't be possible to do after 2020 but who gives a shit right when Ireland basically opened a new Double Irish sandwich straight away.
No, the laughable thing about it is that you incorrectly imagine the Double Irish maneuver to be relevant to a tax on the unimproved value of land.
Why is it false?
Because controlling access to US markets is absolutely irrelevant to a land value tax.
Tax avoidance schemes rely on using domestic consumption/manufacturing potential of large countries while using the legislative/tax rules of tax havens.
All very well if you are talking about a tax on profits, consumption, wages, sales, value added, etc., but completely irrelevant to a tax on the unimproved value of land, because it's not a tax on a transaction
You are saying that it is possible to tax the land
Yes, and I am objectively correct about that.
but in reality that is impossible to do
No, you are objectively incorrect as a matter of objective physical fact.
because if you heavily tax the land then regular people that are not corporations will not be able to pay that tax to start new businesses or pay individual land taxes.
Uh, yes, they will, actually, because THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING IT. They are just paying it to rich, greedy, privileged parasites, instead of to the public and community that make the land desirable enough to make them willing -- and able -- to pay private landowners for it.
If you are planning to tax just very large corporations and exclude all small/middle businesses and private individuals then it is not that different compared to the corporate tax.
That's not what I'm planning, but the effect of what I'm planning would be very much more like that than the current tax system.
That is one way you can put it.
And I do, because it is true.
The other way is that reduction of trade barriers makes business easier which creates jobs and increases the competitiveness of the given market with all the effects and affects that come out of it.
Nope. Free trade -- real
free trade, not the current and planned system of institutionalized extraterritorial privilege that neoclassical liars call "free trade" -- makes business harder because it increases the competitiveness of markets.
This is your opinion.
No, it is a fact of objective physical reality.
There are actually many philosophical research on the meaning or principals of justice.
There is certainly a lot of BS on the subject, not least from your namesake.
You approach justice as a utilitarian
which means that as long as it produces the most merit then it is just.
There are more modern theories of justice because the general critique of utilitarianism is that maximum utility/maximum profit is not always the most benefitial outcome because you need to subtract the damages it might do which most of the time do not have a material/monetary value.
The more modern theories, especially Rawls's, are nothing but confused garbage.
A simple example would be that under utilitarianism slavery should be adopted if it is more profitable to the land owner than the labour system while fully disregarding the human rights aspect/moral aspect of this decision. (Which it is by the way)
I'm not a utilitarian, but that grossly misrepresents utilitarianism.
You can not simply take away the money for the higher classes without suffering the consequences of that decision aka Communism.
Garbage with no basis in fact. You could with equal "logic" claim that the consequences would be alcoholism, Mormonism, or astigmatism.
Also the government spends on the middle class via the educational, health, etc programs.
And landowners take every cent of that spending through increased rents, thanks to the Henry George Theorem. That's why the working people who are the putative beneficiaries of that spending stay poor despite toiling their lives away, while the idle landowner gets rich without lifting a finger.
I'm curious: how do you prevent yourself from knowing that fact?