the fact that Article 8
ingliz wrote:Article 8 is an irrelevance
It proves me right and you wrong, as already proved.
Pitkin, A Political and Civil History of the United States of America wrote:The taxes and expenses of the union, had never yet been apportioned among the states, according to the rule prescribed by the confederation.
IOW, they tried in the Articles, but did not succeed. When someone is described as having tried to do something, it is generally understood that they did not succeed.
USIA wrote:Under the Articles of Confederation, no provisions were made for an executive branch to enforce the laws nor for a national court system to interpret them. The result was virtual chaos. Without the power to collect taxes, the federal government plunged into debt
The Federalist, No. 15 wrote:We have neither troops. nor treasury, nor government.
the Founding Fathers rightly tried to implement LVT to fund the federal governmen
No, they did not.
Yes, they indisputably did, in the Articles of Confederation, as I have already proved to you multiple times. Your claim that because they did not succeed they did not try is prima facie fallacious and disingenuous, and equivalent to the self-evidently absurd claim that either the Articles were never written by the Founders, or that they were only written as a kind of schoolbook exercise, with no intention that they should ever take effect.
The states were not collecting LVT. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784.*
So they did not SUCCEED in implementing LVT, but they did TRY. Proving me right and you wrong.
the Founding Fathers rightly tried to implement LVT to fund the federal governmen
No, they did not.
I already proved they did.
They printed paper money.
When their attempt to implement LVT was unsuccessful.
ingliz wrote:The states had printed $209 million of notes, Congress $241 million, yet they drew only small amounts of revenue from taxation – Congress drew none at all.
Because they tried to introduce LVT but did not succeed in the attempt. Proving me right and you wrong.
Greedy, evil landowners refused to pay
There is a difference between refusing to pay and being unable to pay taxes.
Greedy, evil landowners were easily able to pay an LVT, had it actually been calculated and levied. The states just refused to do so.
Between the Yorktown victory of 1781 and the federal assumption of state debts in 1790, Americans were hit with taxes that averaged three or four times those of the colonial era.
Because they had just fought a long war, and had to pay for it. Duh.
The principal purpose of the levies was to pay interest on securities, many of them bought up by speculators. In the mid-1780s, most states earmarked at least two-thirds of their tax revenue for foreign and domestic holders of the war bonds.
Because they refused to tax land.
The tax burden was magnified by a shortage of circulating coin.
There was no tax burden on landowners, who were pocketing huge gains on land speculation -- gains obtained as a result of the war everyone EXCEPT landowners was being required to pay for.
In 1785, four years after the South Carolina assembly voted to require that debts be paid in gold or silver, a newspaper writer who took the name Americanus said he had seen debtors forced to "give up £50" worth of property "to pay £10." "Who will call this Justice?" he asked.*
I certainly will. Soulless, amoral greed robots have no right to abrogate others' liberty to use the land if they aren't going to make just compensation.
State assemblies responded to the suffering by easing taxation and cancelling or reducing private debt.
So it's only "suffering" when a rich, greedy, evil landowner has to pay for what he takes from the community, not when his greed forces the landless into poverty, servitude, and starvation...?
Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....
Source?
B C Campbell, Disasters, Accidents, and Crises in American History
Link does not work.
Interest on the debt is paid by the government, not collected by it
Yes, but It is important to note that the Federal Reserve returns the interest payments on its security holdings (less its expenses) to the U.S. Treasury.
No it doesn't. It is guaranteed a 6% return independently of expenses. And the Fed does not hold all the debt.
Consequently, when the Federal Reserve increases its bond holdings, for example, the U.S. Treasury realises an effective reduction to its debt expenses. The present value of the reduction in Treasury expenses is equal to the amount of money injected by the Federal Reserve’s open market purchase.
Financial sleight-of-hand.
I'm saying it's irrelevant when they can't profit from such actions in any case.
If landlords are not profiting by such actions, why do they do it?
They profit by it NOW because they can POCKET LAND RENT. With LVT, they can't, and can therefore only make money by providing competitive accommodation.
These are just facts you have decided never to know.
A third of homes in the private rented sector do not meet basic standards of health, safety and habitability.
Because absence of LVT makes it profitable, a situation for which your opposition to justice makes you personally responsible.
Dr. J Hohmann, Protecting the Right to Housing in England: A Context of Crisis wrote:The report shows that:
A startling 33% of dwellings in the private rental sector are non-decent, meaning they do not meet basic standards of health, safety and habitability. For one-third of those living in private rental accommodation, life is lived in unsafe and unhealthy conditions below the basic minimum considered adequate in England.
And by opposing justice, you are personally responsible for keeping it that way. Therefore, every child that dies because it was being raised in unsafe and unhealthy conditions has been killed by you personally, by your conscious, deliberate decision to sacrifice it on the altar of unearned profit for rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners.
Security of tenure in the private rental sector is inadequate. Tenants are afraid to complain about the poor quality of properties for fear of retaliatory evictions or arbitrary rent rises. There are no real safeguards against this practice and as many as 200,000 tenants were subject to a retaliatory eviction in 2013.
And by opposing justice, you are personally responsible for every injustice private landowners visit on their tenants.
The private rental sector is increasingly unaffordable. The cost of housing is almost double that of social housing and private tenants are increasingly unable to meet the costs. A quarter of those renting in the private rental sector need housing benefit to meet the cost of housing.
A situation for which you bear personal responsibility, because you oppose justice.