Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992

Posted by James Bowery on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 08:57.

The proposal (first made in 1992) is relatively simple:

Replace all taxes on economic activity (such as the income tax) with a single tax on the net, in place liquidation value of household assets, at the risk free interest rate (nominally around 3% or the long-term average of the short-term Treasury rate). Homestead is exempted (intended to include home and tools of the trade for self-employment—nominally around $300k/family in 2009). Businesses are not taxed, only their owners.

Use this calculator to find out how various households fare under various assumptions.  The output is the change in the household’s after tax income.  If it is positive, that household prefers the NAT over the present system.  If negative, that household prefers the current system.  In the default example, the household before tax rate of return on assets (its investment skill) is set to a relatively high 11.11% to show that even Warren Buffet may prefer the NAT if he is as good an investor as his mythology would have us believe.  Set that rate of return lower to see what happens to Warren, Bill and their buddies if they’re not as good as they’re supposed to be according to modern myth.

Current Income Tax Rate (ITR)
Proposed Asset Tax Rate (ATR)
Proposed Homestead Exemption (E)
Household’s Current Before Tax Rate of Return on Assets (ROROA)

 

Earned income is different from total household income (the current tax base).

“Income” means the same thing here as it does in the 16th Amendment authorizing the taxation of “income from whatever source” which includes not only wages but also dividends, capital gains, rents, net-sales, interest, etc.  In other words, “income” means the return on all investments including the investment of one’s labor for a return (commonly called wages, salaries, or “earned” income).  In this example the total household “income” (taxable under the current income tax system) is its “earned income” plus its rate of return times the household’s assets.

Tags:



Comments:


1

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:33 | #

Frank writes:

Net asset taxes would require property valuations and monitoring.

The same can be said of any kind of property tax or, indeed, when you go buy property insurance.  Moreover, look at the precise wording of the tax base:  “in-place liquidation value”.  Banks do this kind of evaluation for collateral all the time.  But you bring up an important detail which is how do you get a reasonable assessment?  Certainly not the way the French assess their NAT:  Government lawyers “negotiate” with high price lawyers hired by wealthy taxpayers to value their assets!

No, you simply let people place bids for the property in escrow with the government, which pays interest at the treasury rate which is also the net asset tax rate.  This is virtually the definition of “liquidation value” since someone is willing to set aside that amount of cash for the instantaneous purchase of the property.  The maximum bid in escrow becomes the assessment for the property.  The government can make its own bids, which, if maximal, become the assessment basis.  An owner thinks he’s being over-taxed?  He can force the sale of his asset for the assessment at any time.  His choice.

Frank writes:

That would also drive off the land traditional farmers and others who are not maximally productive. The goal is rekindle a middle class not to force the most efficient use of resources.

I went to the trouble, and it was some trouble, to put up this calculator for you Frank.  You didn’t use it.  So I’ll do it for you:

First, what is a “traditional farmer”?  How about the modern equivalent of “40 acres and a mule”.  The modern equivalent of that is still 40 acres but more automation and we must not forget the farm house within which to raise his sons that will work his 40 acres with him (most likely while doing an online business of some kind with their net connection).  How much does all this cost?

[url=“http://www.ontariocorn.org/growing/cost.html”>At peak in 2008, Iowa farm land averaged $4500/acre</a>.  40 acres of that land would cost $180,000. 

A farm house with 3 bedrooms is about 2000 sqft and using reasonably generous construction costs at $80/sqft it is another $160,000.  This totals $340,000. 

Yield is about 170 bushels/acre at a price in recent history of around $5/bushel and <a ]cost of cultivation without land rent[/url] of about $2.50/bushel for an annual crop income of 40*170*2.50 = $17,000/year.

This means the “traditional farmer” is getting a before tax return on assets of $17,000/$340,000 = 5%.  In reality a full-time farm family can do a lot better than that on such a small acreage but we’ll go with that low rate of return for now.

Now, doing the NAT liability calculation:

.03*($340,000-$300,000) = $1200

That’s equivalent to an income tax rate of $1200/$17,000 = 7%!!!

We haven’t even started to include the tax free income available to the household from their online business, growing/canning their own food, etc., let alone the $10,000/year/resident-adult-citizens dividend originally proposed (again 1992) as part of this reform.  All of that is virtually tax free without any tax burden on money spent for education, medical care or other high return activities.  What do you think that society is going to look like after a few generations?


2

Posted by Positive Subliminal Programming, fka Wild Bill on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:14 | #

The best tax for a sane world is one that taxes transactions.

Here is how to do it:

Levy a transaction tax of .001 or .0005 on every bank level or credit card transaction.

There is no paper work, no lawyers, no way to escape it.

Bank A transfers $1,000,000 to Bank B.

With a .001 tax rate the tax is $1000
Bank B books $999,000

Farmer Brown sells $1,000,000 worth of produce… he banks $999,000.

simple is as simple does… no accountants, no lawyers.

The only drawback to bank level transaction tax is that it will generate so much money that there is no telling what the godless miscreants in the government will do with it.


3

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:48 | #

A transaction tax is superior to a sales tax, value added tax or income tax in that it sticks to essentials that relate in some way to the service of government:  protection of property rights.  The transfer of property rights is a point when loss of property rights are at a higher risk and it is precisely for that reason that credit card companies can make a reasonable case that their fee is a kind of transaction insurance—allow them to back the buyer’s rights in the event of buyer dissatisfaction with the transaction.  However, I would contend that this is more properly the province of the private sector.  The parties to the transaction are limited in number and are generally capable of handling the associated risks.  Property rights, on the other hand, are, like the national territory, STATic hence more properly fall under the maintenance of the STATe.


4

Posted by Frank on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:28 | #

James, I appreciate the trouble you went to.

I would raise the $300000 exemption to ~$50m. “In-place liquidation value” might improve this by undervaluing less fluid assets, but what of retirees? Hate to tax them.

The modern equivalent of that is still 40 acres but more automation

Farms have grown much larger. Because of the civil rights legislation and maybe other laws, I’m wary of going so far all in one go.

Frank, we aren’t on different sides.

I’m not so sure. There’s some overlap, but the size of overlap isn’t clear.

For now I’d like to see ownership matched with management and liability, large corporations broken up, government size broken up, the legal system fixed, the banking system overhauled (somehow…), and trade and immigration and even investment barriers (as the Chinese have) put up.

An owner thinks he’s being over-taxed?  He can force the sale of his asset for the assessment at any time.

This I strongly oppose. Man and property should be rooted and connected. Property is not mere fluid capital.

All men of $1m net worth are not equal. Some have ancestral lands. Some are unrooted NYC trash.


5

Posted by Frank on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:31 | #

At some point I’ll post some details of my little ideas or else quotes from great men I admire whose teachings I believe to be important components to an economic plan.

So, you can then have a go at me, lol.

I… don’t have $1m net assets btw… But I fear you’re working against the, ah let’s call it the pro-white elite, when the true enemy is the anti-white elite.


6

Posted by Frank on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:48 | #

Freedom from the federal government in GT’s microcommunities might be difficult too if the feds were sniffing around for “hidden assets”.

How about this: confiscate all wealth from NYC and give it to South Carolina whites? Sounds like a solid solution to me (tongue in cheek…)

-

The transaction tax might hit small businesses harder than vertical monopolies.


7

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:57 | #

Making the tax base, to which the risk-free discount rate applies as the tax rate, the in place liquidation value is crucial to keeping liquid value out of the hands of uncreative rent seekers.  Your concern about the owner of the property having the option to force the government to buy his property at the assessed value is hardly a problem for the rooted man.  He values his land far more than the government or others could so his assessment will be low.  That, plus the standard exemption makes it _very_ difficult to uproot a man from his land.

Now, if you are talking about someone like Ted Turner, who owns millions of acres, the standard exemption won’t help.  Too bad.  I don’t care how “pro white” he is—he has no business enjoying the legal protection of all that land from the toil of thousands of families who, like the Scotch Irish, were cleared from their ancestral lands by sell-out clan chiefs.

If you’re on the side of such “pro white elites”, then I most certainly do have more than a bone to pick with you.

As for the size of farms being huge—hell yes!  That’s what cleared us off our lands in the New World, only a few hundred years since the last clearances and crammed us into urban areas for the unrooted elites to feed on!

Where the hell were our “pro-white elites” during the American Clearances?


8

Posted by Frank on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:29 | #

He values his land far more than the government or others could so his assessment will be low.

If the government values his land too highly, it’ll tax him too much though. That’s persecution against those who are rooted. Those who aren’t rooted would sell and buy as it advances their wealth.

Ted Turner surpasses my $50m cap. I’m inclined for the feds to confiscate any excess of $50m… I don’t recommend such, but I don’t like the idea of one person or nuclear family having a sum in excess of around that amount, except again where there’s some legitimate family business or farm existing. You could capture that money with a death tax cap (all inherited moneys in excess of some amount are to be taxed@100% for example, though he’d just hide it in some nonprofit…)

Reg. farms, they should be smaller. One hit on farms would be to replace government subsidies with a trade barrier and a program of buying some percentage for storage in case of famine.

I don’t know the solution to farms, but I’m wary of hitting them with a tax. I’d want to see how this plays out, and who benefits and loses before judging on farms. Large soulless corporations made up of many owners are a primary enemy.


9

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:11 | #

Frank points out quite validly: If the government values his land too highly, it’ll tax him too much though. That’s persecution against those who are rooted. Those who aren’t rooted would sell and buy as it advances their wealth.

Yes and that is one of the reasons coupling, or even preceding, the NAT with the Citizen’s Dividend is crucial:

The devolutionary pressures created by the Citizen’s Divdend (again: about $10,000 per resident adult citizen per year) will cause taxation assessment authority to similarly devolve.  As that happens, the imposition by local governments of what amount to “buy out” assessments will prove essential for the assortative migrations that are at the heart of the practical realization of Secession From Slavery to Free Scientific Society.

There is going to come a time when it is important the environments are more exclusive and as a part of that process, effective means of relocating large amounts of people, not in a flight from “diversity” but in an attraction to mutual consent, comes to dominate human society.  Any other option is untenable in a highly mobile, technologically sophisticated world that is experiencing one of its larges extinction events.

Frank writes: I don’t know the solution to farms, but I’m wary of hitting them with a tax.

And as I already demonstrated, it is unnecessary to hit the “traditional family farm” with even the need to file taxes, let alone liability.  The standard exemption might even be defined in terms of such a farm and indeed that was my intent and was the intent of the origination of Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.


10

Posted by Euro on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:06 | #

“A transaction tax is superior to a sales tax, value added tax or income tax in that it sticks to essentials that relate in some way to the service of government:  protection of property rights.”

What do you think of a transaction tax on stock trading? Seems like a great way to raise revenue at the expense of parasitical speculators.Also,I’ve recently read that a cross border VAT as opposed to tariffs is the norm for European countries.I’m not sure I understand the difference.Whats your opinion on tariffs and CBVATS?


11

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:43 | #

The problem with stock trading is the rent seeking of the exchanges due to their “natural monopoly” position—rent seeking monopoly that ends up providing evidence for what Frank calls “the iron law of oligarchy”.  Rent seeking is zeroed out by taxing at the discount rate the in-place liquidation value of net assets.  The same applies to Microsoft and any of a variety of other “natural monopolies” arising from ownership of any network hence ownership of the positive feedback of the network externality (aka the network effect).  The most extreme example of this is a central bank that controls the reserve currency of international trade. 

What is left after taxing and dispersing in citizens dividends this risk-free profit or economic rent, is the relative merit, or lack thereof, of the current owners:  true free enterprise.  There is much less to fear from the free market when you take away the accumulation of economic rent in the hands of what you call “speculators”.

Tariffs are another matter:  “Comparative advantage” cannot compare with the advantage of national security so it should be no surprise that the enemies of the nation are the greatest proponents of theories of international free trade.  Basically, international free trade is for businessmen who fear scientists and engineers and tariffs are for leaders who rely on scientists and engineers to make the nation strong.  Tariffs are a form of economic rent available only to the government and should be distributed in a citizen’s dividend just as are other forms of economic rent.

What people don’t seem to get is the correspondence between a strong nation created by dispersing economic rent in citizen’s dividends and a strong human ecology created by dispersing actuarial militia dividends to the members of the militia funded by property insurance premiums for indemnification against loss of property rights due to “force or fraud”.  The militia is a small-scale—local—version giving rise to resilient communities whereas the national version gives rise to a resilient nation which devolves to a more natural structure as various locales discover ways of maximizing economic rent through technological advances.


12

Posted by Positive Subliminal Programming on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:08 | #

What do you think of a transaction tax on stock trading? Seems like a great way to raise revenue at the expense of parasitical speculators.Also,I’ve recently read that a cross border VAT as opposed to tariffs is the norm for European countries.I’m not sure I understand the difference.Whats your opinion on tariffs and CBVATS?

The mechanics of buying stocks and money market futures are the same as paying your electric bill… you write a check or authorize an automatic debit from your account to theirs… and with the transaction tax in place their receiving bank will skim the percentage, whatever it is, and forward it to the government tax collection account.

Simple is as simple does…

Think about it… this also prevents the bureaucracy from controlling the economy, from controlling you… they only get a small piece of the action, every time.

Perhaps transactions that go out of the country could be taxed at a higher rate?

Ha ha ha

Think about it, no lawyers, no accountants, no courts, no judges.

They will all close ranks and defend their livelihoods of sucking the blood from the honest working people as if their lives depend on it, so inadequate and small minded are they.


13

Posted by Frank on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:47 | #

James,

CC pointed out one of the most important dangers of your tax in a previous thread: it strengthens loyalty to the federal government.

The devolutionary pressures created by the Citizen’s Divdend (again: about $10,000 per resident adult citizen per year) will cause taxation assessment authority to similarly devolve.

This is assuming everything goes as planned. The masses are incapable of taking care of themselves, so someone somewhere is going to have to do it. You’re assuming we’d all have the sense to form little ethnic enclaves to care for our own, but blacks and Mexicans are incapable of taking care of their own. And to be clear: most whites are incapable of managing their own affairs too; they’d need to be cared for by a local government or kin group run by leaders or some political entity.

You’ll notice my focus here has been on the taxed on and not the receivers. I’m interested in taking money from anti-whites. It’s admittedly tough to say the masses would choose services over hard cash, but after a year or so there’d be blacks and Mexicans living in squalor begging for help. Somehow pro-whites are supposed to be in political power and able to control future political events for your plan to work. I don’t see it happening.

I’d prefer pro-whites earned their own bread, with help indirectly such as via protectionism etc. A direct check from the fed itself isn’t to my liking because it encourages bad habbits. I’m not even sure if less wealth wouldn’t be a good way to break whites away from their sports channel and FOX News. Assuming wealth is a good thing for whites, and there’s likely a moderate ideal, it’s best they earn it on their own and develop proper work habits.

-

And as I already demonstrated, it is unnecessary to hit the “traditional family farm” with even the need to file taxes, let alone liability.  The standard exemption might even be defined in terms of such a farm and indeed that was my intent and was the intent of the origination of Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.

I’m doubtful I want to go after the large, noncorporate farms either. Property has a way of enslaving its owner - it can remake a bad man into a good man if he actually works it and is tied to it as opposed to owning part of it a short while from far away while another manages it. A push towards smallness would be good, but you go too far all at once. Also, the ultimate ideal might be smaller farms or coopts, but that doesn’t mean the ideal now is for such.

I’ve seen claims that those who work for corporations and for government vote more liberal. And those who work for themselves are more conservative. I suspect this is true, and I suspect this is more important than wealth distribution. Aristotle would have called employees (those who work for a wage) slaves, and that’s an apt description.


14

Posted by mordred on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:57 | #

Mr. Bowery knows a lot about taxes.

Please tell us, Mr. Bowery, what is the difference between taxation and theft.


15

Posted by Frank on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:05 | #

I can’t fully dismiss your proposal, but I have trouble picturing what would happen both were such policies fully enacted and if they were only partially enacted (politics often involves compromise). There too many unknowns… Worst case scenario: could this be capture by an anti-white and reworked to their favour?

Also, according to political theory: democracies last until the poor realise they may vote for wealth as is being done here. What I’ve been taught/“self”-taught (if reading another’s work is somehow not learning from a teacher), is giving out wealth like this undermines the work ethic. People don’t have the discipline to handle such responsibility.

Ideally a system needs to be set in place that encourages as much responsibility as people are capable, and takes care when people are wholly incapable or have simply fallen into corruption. But I’m doubtful freedom like this, especially for Americans who are so used to servitude, could work.

Ideally you want capital out working or otherwise invested. Or you want leisure time with citizens using it in ways that are useful to the state (e.g. pursuing wisdom and other virtue or spending more time with family or serving in militia). Those who sit idle or who overindulge in pleasure ultimately die off to those who don’t. And those who similarly fall into idleness and indulgence aren’t supposed to be happy, and it makes sense that they wouldn’t be happy.

Buying popularity though does have a certain promise to it. Whatever works is good, within moral bounds.


16

Posted by Frank on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:07 | #

Please tell us, Mr. Bowery, what is the difference between taxation and theft.

That’s a loaded question.

A citizen who doesn’t do his duty to the state (so long as it serves the nation) doesn’t deserve property.

Paying taxes is a duty.


17

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:08 | #

Mordred, I refer you to Lysander Spooner’s definition of legitimate government.  If you don’t see the connection with what I am proposing then I suggest you go back and carefully read my above comment starting with “What people don’t seem to get…” .


18

Posted by Frank on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:11 | #

It’s a loaded question because it’s possible for taxes to be theft. But it’s also possible for taxes to be appropriate for one’s duty. Cicero exploded the libertarian claim, and all I did was point it out with regard to duty.

-

Truly, judging by James’s proposal, he’s very close to a libertarian. Going by libertarian principles, he’s less of a “thief” than the boys over at LewRockwell who’d prefer the current system to James’s. They all worship Wal-Mart, not freedom.


19

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:38 | #

Frank writes: It’s admittedly tough to say the masses would choose services over hard cash, but after a year or so there’d be blacks and Mexicans living in squalor begging for help. Somehow pro-whites are supposed to be in political power and able to control future political events for your plan to work. I don’t see it happening.

Having been credited in the Congressional Record by the primary sponsor (Rep. Ron Packard R-CA) in his introduction of my Congressional testimony, with a primary role in getting his legislation signed into law at the Federal level (PL101-611), I can speak with some authority on grassroots political action. 

As I’ve stated before here, public sector rent seeking is fundamentally about people engaging in politics to get money to engage in more politics.  If you let some people benefit more than others in receipt of money from the government, then they will have more capability and incentive to engage in politics.  This is how the both political parties operate but the Democratic party’s “protected groups” are almost entirely organized around this machinery.  They absolutely depend on keeping the “masses of whites” with their nose to the grind stone, paying taxes and receiving no benefits, to the point that all whites do when they get off work is try to kill the pain with TV, beer and sports.

If you simply level the public sector rent-seeking playing field with a Citizen’s Dividend, you make it possible for whites to do something other than be slaves to their employers and to politically enfranchised groups.

That’s when you’ll see real political change.

Frank further writes: ’d prefer pro-whites earned their own bread, with help indirectly such as via protectionism etc.

You don’t really believe me when I say “dividend” then do you?

What of land lords who collect rent?  Have they not “earned their own bread”?

The “posterity of the founders” are the beneficiaries of a family land trust.  The family land trust pays dividends.  It’s that simple.

Frank writes: democracies last until the poor realise they may vote for wealth as is being done here.

Then you perhaps see stockholders voting only for boards of directors who will squeeze all the capital out of their corporation to pay dividends?  What is far more likely, of course, is that the stockholders will vote in boards of directors who put their buddies into executive positions to squeeze all the capital out of the stockholders’ corporation.

We can discuss that problem if you like, but I see little evidence that once you have eliminated the advantages of rent-seeking, the classically recognized failure mode of democracy is inevitable.


20

Posted by Frank on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:11 | #

You don’t really believe me when I say “dividend” then do you?

I think it’s a good choice of words - ah good spin. But no, I don’t take the view you take.

The citizens serve the nation. The state serves the nation. The state doesn’t serve the individuals like this unless its a good system that serves to make the state itself powerful or otherwise serves the nation, including by making it happy (everything is about power and survival necessarily - happiness is good too).

The “posterity of the founders” are the beneficiaries of a family land trust.  The family land trust pays dividends.  It’s that simple.

It’s one theoretical system among many.

They absolutely depend on keeping the “masses of whites” with their nose to the grind stone, paying taxes and receiving no benefits

The living standard is relatively high in the US.

What of land lords who collect rent?  Have they not “earned their own bread”?

They still must manage the property. Some work, some responsibility is required. Admittedly it’s not ideal for land lords to hire a rental company as is popular nowadays to manage for them… Profits from rentals are not always high though: often the goal is to have the property appreciate and then sell for a profit.

Then you perhaps see stockholders and voting only for boards of directors who will squeeze all the capital out of their corporation to pay dividends?  What is far more likely, of course, is that the stockholders will vote in boards of directors who put their buddies into executive positions to squeeze all the capital out of the stockholders’ corporation.

Any corporation paying dividends risks losing out to those who reinvest dividends - not all pay dividends.


21

Posted by Frank on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:18 | #

Land lords who leach on their investment don’t help the state. If they can get by with doing little, they’ll be more apt to do little*. Is it fair - is it just? Not to the extent it creates a leach. If they pursue some leisure time though, akin to an old European noble pursuing leisure time, then perhaps they’re not truly leaches. And being free from money concerns, they’re free to serve the state free from as much temptation by money as someone who is having money problems. But if they fall into idleness, then they are a leach.

*And just the same someone taking $10000 a year will be more apt to do less.


22

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:11 | #

Frank writes: The living standard is relatively high in the US… someone taking $10000 a year will be more apt to do less.

Careful, Frank.  You’re falling into an abyss that has opened up in just the last generation:

The Iron Law of Wages is predicated on the fact that wages will not fall below subsistence.  When you introduce birth control and feminism (the State as alpha male), the game changes in a fundamental way so that wages can fall below the cost of reproduction.

Indeed they have.

This is why people like you are in danger of being called “kulaks” by your own constituents and a replay of the French Revolution is in the offing—awaiting only a black or Jewish leader to take up my platform with an anti-white leadership agenda.

You have been warned.

Remember Tolstoy’s warning to the Czar.


23

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:39 | #

From: ...
Date: Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 11:36 PM
Subject: Net Asset Tax
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)


Mr. Bowery,

I am writing this to let you know that apparently 2 Jewish economists stole your net asset taxation idea and published a paper on it. Here is the link to the paper:

https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/9/1/51/3572441/Property-Is-Only-Another-Name-for-Monopoly

There was an article in the Financial Times about this paper a few days ago, critical of the idea:

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/06/07/2189793/socialism-with-trolly-characteristics/

This was followed by a response by one of the economists who wrote the paper:

http://ericposner.com/response-to-matt-kleins-post-on-alphaville-on-harberger-taxation/

Best regards,

...

My initial reaction to it is given in my 2012 response to a request for discussion of what the author called “The Bowery Tax”.  The difference between self and market assessed liquidation value is non-trivial for a variety of reasons.  Among them is that self-assessment has a potential moral hazard if it becomes the basis for any kind of government indemnification for loss due to government failure (e.g. the World Trade Center)—as a NAT would tend to suggest.  Another is preservation of the owner’s option to not sell—to which the market-response is higher bids hence higher taxation.  Under market-assessment the owner also has the incentive to make improvements that are not visible to the market.  This is consistent with the owner taking on some of the responsibility for protecting his property rights, hence lowering government burden.  Items of “sentimental value” are handled by the owner accepting full responsibility for protection of those properties; no legal liability for theft of those items is attached to them—although associated violations, such as breaking and entering, would still obtain under valuation of the protective structure (vault, house, etc.).  Finally, and most crucially, the difference between what the next-most valuable use of a property and the current owner’s use of that property is where the owner demonstrates his superiority over the general market.

As is typical of Jewish scholarship, the paper is quite elaborate with many theoretic digressions that make it hard to keep perspective.  They do, at least, pay lip service to empirical testing in this, the last sentence, of the paper’s introduction:

That said, we acknowledge that our discussion is exploratory and that only empirical evidence can resolve questions about whether our system would work well or poorly.

Whether they would be willing to place priority on Sortocracy’s sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them, is the real test of their intellectual honesty (ability to maintain and effectively promote perspective in the presence of encyclopaedic digressions).


24

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 12 Jun 2017 11:05 | #

Since I just read it yesterday, Chapter 12 of “Two Hundred Years Together” came to mind this morning seeing that both sides of the “debate” over net asset taxation in the aforelinked Financial Times opinions are presented by Jewish scholars—and this extends to virtually all of the post WW II cites given by the paper at issue.

A quote from Chapter 12 of Solzhenitsyn’s magnum opus that resonates with the student draft exemption of the Vietnam War era:

Markov’s objection: “Universities are empty [because Russian students are at war, and they send [to the universities] masses of Jews.” “Escaping military service,” the Jews “have overwhelmed the University of Petrograd and, thanks to that, will swell the ranks of the Russian intelligentsia… This phenomenon… is detrimental to the Russian people, even destructive,” because every people “is subject to the power of its intelligentsia.” “The Russians must protect their elites, their intelligentsia, their officials, their government; the latter must be Russian.”


25

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:07 | #

The conclusion of the paper ventures into slavery with this prominent proposal:

In the most radical extension, Harberger taxation of human capital could be
extended to labor. Individuals could be forced to pay a tax on the self-assessed
value of their potential income (the value of their time) rather than being taxed
on their actual income.

A radical extension indeed!  Not even the IRS taxes you on your _potential_ income.  Moreover if someone “purchases your time” at your self-assessed valuation, may they then deploy whips and chains to ensure you realize your “potential” on their behalf?  Or may they, merely, subject you to ethnic gang-rape in prison if you fail to realize your “potential income” on their behalf?

A passage like this—prominent in the conclusion—raises more than the “ethical issues” alluded to by the authors.  For example, Weyl is a Senior Researcher at Microsoft Research, New York City.  One of the primary motivating factors that led me to suggest a net asset tax based on the net present value calculation was my rather intense awareness of how Moore’s Law had been vitiated by Microsoft’s network effect monopoly via their operating system platform.  A charitable interpretation of such “a radical extension” is the authors are merely pointing out how absurd taxing human action is—showing it to be, indeed, slavery.  Less charitable interpretations are 1) Microsoft is setting up a paper tiger to vaccinate the social sciences against a rational tax system, or 2) The Jewish* intelligentsia is starting to realize that a radical change in political economy is afoot that will force them to give up obvious forms of rent seeking—but that they may be able to bargain away those rents in exchange for the institution of a form of slavery that is more in keeping with Semitic rule.

*The category “Jewish” really needs to be broken down into the Cultural Marxist vs Zionist categories—as those two interests began to diverge significantly during the 1930s, reaching a crescendo in the Trump (Likud) vs Deep State/Media/Academia conflict.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Put your hands together.
Previous entry: NHS to open free heroin ‘shooting galleries’ nationwide

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Not Bannon blanking his own blank, but a fellow Neo-Reactionary, Goldman-Sachs alum tasked with...' on Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:31. (View)

Bannon out of White House commented in entry 'Not Bannon blanking his own blank, but a fellow Neo-Reactionary, Goldman-Sachs alum tasked with...' on Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:32. (View)

Bannon said to have tendered resignation commented in entry 'Bannon's disregard of ethno-nationalism is "leaked."' on Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:58. (View)

Japan's growth streak longest in 11 years commented in entry 'EU, Japan determined to deliver trade deal by end of 2017' on Fri, 18 Aug 2017 05:11. (View)

Animals stolen from Venezuelan zoo commented in entry 'Moscow Taking Control of Venezuelan Oil Assets, Gaining Geopolitical Foothold in Caribbean' on Fri, 18 Aug 2017 02:45. (View)

Isil claims responsibility for Barcelona attack commented in entry 'Bastille Day terror on the French Riviera' on Fri, 18 Aug 2017 02:24. (View)

Cantwell wanted for arrest commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Fri, 18 Aug 2017 02:15. (View)

Children of the revolution commented in entry 'In the end for Chester: When co-option of opposition & protest forces you to imagine different text' on Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:35. (View)

Thoughts on Newcastle Grooming commented in entry 'Eighteen Convicted in Mostly Muslim Rape Gang, Police Paid Child Rapist Informant £10k' on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:00. (View)

Driss Oubakir commented in entry 'Bastille Day terror on the French Riviera' on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:17. (View)

Police kill five suspects in Cambrils raid commented in entry 'Bastille Day terror on the French Riviera' on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:00. (View)

Barcelona terror attack: 13 dead commented in entry 'Bastille Day terror on the French Riviera' on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:47. (View)

Red Left beats Gary Cohn's worker's Disney commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:30. (View)

colored woman tears down statue commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:53. (View)

Gary Cohn disgusted by Trump, Bannon proud commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:18. (View)

Baltimore's Confederate monuments removed at night commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:09. (View)

Sarah Champion commented in entry 'Eighteen Convicted in Mostly Muslim Rape Gang, Police Paid Child Rapist Informant £10k' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:57. (View)

Cantwell: a new Hal Turner commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:19. (View)

Trump: "blame on all sides" commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:43. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:00. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24. (View)

Unite Right Organizer, Kessler's poem White Devils commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:05. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Marx supported black slavery in America' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:08. (View)

Baked Alaska may've been blinded commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:25. (View)

"couldn't just get out of the way" commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:10. (View)

Robert E. Lee commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Mon, 14 Aug 2017 22:02. (View)

Friendly Fire commented in entry 'Marx supported black slavery in America' on Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:18. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Mon, 14 Aug 2017 01:52. (View)

Alexander Baron commented in entry 'Melissa Barto's boyfriend kills her on suspicion that she was cheating on him' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 20:27. (View)

Didess42 commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 19:22. (View)

Reagan Tokes commented in entry 'Black hyper-assertiveness, lack of impulse control, predatory aggression & liberal natural fallacy' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:53. (View)

Fields' mother has Jewish name, "Bloom" commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 10:12. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Next-level TRS: Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich is actually Michael ‘Enoch’ ENOCKSON Peinovich-Sippel.' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 05:35. (View)

LeadEagle commented in entry 'Next-level TRS: Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich is actually Michael ‘Enoch’ ENOCKSON Peinovich-Sippel.' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 05:09. (View)

Heather Heyer commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 03:22. (View)

affection-tone