That would not be the point, unless it were assumed that I were in this for personal gain.

Under my suggested system, if it were suddenly implemented right now, I would lose monetarily. I'm retired; I'm not actively earning money (though I do receive retirement income), nor producing anything, nor making my own food. Regarding my consumption of natural resources: I occupy a plot of land, about 6,000 square feet, which is really more space than I need as living space. Under my suggested system, I'd be paying a higher-than current tax on this plot of land, maybe high enough that I might consider moving to a smaller plot of land. Or, I might consider making this land productive, by raising vegetables on it. I have a house on it. I might rent out a room or two. That would make this space more productive. The vegetables and the room rent(s) might be enough to pay the land tax, or, if I were efficiently productive I'd probably come out ahead. (I'm not a farmer and I don't know how much can be earned from a plot this size.). (I also don't have any experience being a landlord.) (Other natural resource consumption: I use relatively little oil or gas. I don't pollute much. I do use water.) (This plot of land that I'm on is in a town of about 30,000 people and the nearest big city is more than an hour away. Where my land is, it's comfortable living but not wealthy, just sort of suburban-like.) But also:

Under my suggested system, a person who earned money from labor would not pay any taxes on those earnings. If my suggested system had been implemented decades ago before I entered the workforce, I would never have paid any taxes on my earnings from labor (including "labor" from office work, which is mainly what I did).

The reason I would lose monetarily, if my suggested system were implemented suddenly right now, is that I have left my working phase and entered my "accumulated wealth" phase. I don't want to work any more; I just want to enjoy the fruits of my labors. But the government(s) (using its old traditional income tax system) has _already_taken_ a portion of the fruits of my labors (as taxes on my earnings). To have lost _that_ portion, and then suddenly be heavily taxed _again_ for occupying the spacious home (land) that I've earned, might feel unfair, but that's only because of the timing of it, for me personally as an individual. (If the effects on family members of different ages were factored in, it could balance out or be beneficial for the family as a whole.)

People having exclusive use of really large pieces of land (like a whole square mile of land) would have to make them productive or else it wouldn't be worthwhile to hold on to that much land. This is according to the site value of land. If you bought, or got tenure to, a whole square mile of land right in the middle of a city, of course the tax on that land would be very high. But if you bought, or got tenure to, a square mile of land out in the desert, the tax would be much lower -- so low that you might not have to do much to make it productive to make it pay for itself; or maybe it wouldn't be a whole square mile, but still it might be spacious as a living space, out there in the wilderness.

As a whole the system balances the change in land tax with the change in labor earnings tax (depending of course on details such as how much revenue the government needs, and the size of the land or other natural resource tax(es), and the size or total elimination of the labor tax). Young people entering the system would get the balanced system, however those things balance out.

Under our current system, after I pay off the mortgage, then our government would say I "own" that soil (although it will still tax me for it as part of its "property tax" calculation, which implies that the government (or The People it represents) still has _some_ claim on that soil, even in our current system).

Back to what you said: I did not create the ground. True. So, under the new system I'm suggesting, I would not own it.

I should still have tenure to it though. More about that below.

Under the new system I'm suggesting, the tax on land and other natural resources would be much higher than it is now, and all other taxes (most especially the tax on labor's earnings) would be greatly reduced or eliminated.

As long as I would continue to pay the tax on the land, I would continue to have tenure to it.

I doubt that your system will be instituted within our lifetimes, unless people such as Occasio-Cortez continue their rise and suddenly take over. To me your system punishes success. Economics is about incentives.

At any rate I disagree with you. As far as I can understand your views are based on class envy. Sure, I envy everyone above me on the economic ladder, as I envy those who have perfect children and trophy wives, and are more athletic. Taking from them will not help me.

We must agree to disagree, but tell me where your system is closest to being enacted ? Which nation has a similar program to what you want ? Unless it is being practiced it may be great in theory, but a failure in action.

So you want to agree to disagree. I haven't studied wherever is closest to it being enacted; I've read hints of it but rarely; the biggest closest example I've read about was the Native American ways before they got k**led off from European-borne diseases and the remainder coerced into owning little plots of land according to the European model of land ownership. The person who taught it to me said that such ideas sometimes take more than a hundred years to become enacted. It didn't stop him from talking about the ideas. Including myself I know at least four people who have learned almost solely from him about these ideas and so the ideas continue onward. (And it isn't just us; the teacher was part of something bigger with other economists and some of them wrote books including these ideas. Also this goes back in time well over a hundred years.) Think how long it took to get from divine-right kings to democracy. Most people argue a little as you have in this post; they say it hasn't been done yet so they dismiss it; sometimes they say it isn't politically feasible. Neither was democracy for a while, perhaps a couple of millennia. Good thing everybody didn't give up.

Class envy? If you want to characterize a quest for justice, or a quest for a better system, in that way, then that's just one more thing we could agree to disagree about. In a way, I envy the thief when I feel that he or she has more power than I do. I'll let pass your first paragraph as you prefer not to argue further. (If there's a reader who wants my views they can find them in my earlier posts in this thread.) Thank you for the discussion!

Unfortunately I lack the ability to deconstruct your system. Intuitively I think it is unworkable, unfair, and would be a disaster in practice. You say it was close to being used in Native American communities ? I share your sorrow in those communities having been destroyed by our ancestors, but those people lived a subsistence existence and many were nomadic.

I believe a modern country with over 300 million people could not function with your system. It is like the Commune system. That system works in tiny communities where everyone has close social bonds and histories. Once the communities grow beyond a certain size the Commune falls apart.

Our current income tax system is unfair. Just how unworkable and disastrous would take a lot of time and words to analyze. Some people like it because it tends to make rich people richer and not have to work as much.

One book about Native American cultures is "1491" (in case you or anyone wants to read about them). I believe you undervalue them with the word "subsistence". As for some of them being "nomadic", so what? That doesn't necessarily make those cultures any worse. The connection to the taxation system arguments is not clear.

We already have both land taxation and income taxation, in the U.S., and have had them for a long time. To adjust them to make them more fair would not make the U.S. fall apart. A radical change _might_possibly_ make the U.S. fall apart, but considering that possibility for the future, the first thing about it to study is whether the change would be fair or not. If the U.S. cannot survive being fair, that would be a very significant finding.

Our current income tax system is unfair. Just how unworkable and disastrous would take a lot of time and words to analyze. Some people like it because it tends to make rich people richer and not have to work as much.

One book about Native American cultures is "1491" (in case you or anyone wants to read about them). I believe you undervalue them with the word "subsistence". As for some of them being "nomadic", so what? That doesn't necessarily make those cultures any worse. The connection to the taxation system arguments is not clear.

We already have both land taxation and income taxation, in the U.S., and have had them for a long time. To adjust them to make them more fair would not make the U.S. fall apart. A radical change _might_possibly_ make the U.S. fall apart, but considering that possibility for the future, the first thing about it to study is whether the change would be fair or not. If the U.S. cannot survive being fair, that would be a very significant finding.

You seem to be very anti investor. There two two major components to the production of goods and services, Labor and Capital. I can understand that you champion Labor, since you seem to have worked for a living. That is fine, but Labor is nothing without Capital.

People who are willing to risk their money are not evil. I have never worked for a poor man. Some of the folks I worked for when I was young were first class jerks, or so I thought when I was unsk**led labor. They gave me a real hard time.

Besides giving me a real hard time, they gave me a job. With out them I had no money. When I got older I appreciated why they were the way they were. They had built a business from scratch. If they were not hard headed about the way they ran their business, they would not have that business very long.

I never had the brains or guts to go into business for myself, however I have been a mutual fund stock investor since the late 1970s. I have risked my Capital. That was money that I earned working shift work and eating coal dirt.

When I made money, and sometimes I made big money, the Socialists in my relation all badmouthed me and said that the Government should tax me cause I di-int deserve that money. When the many times I lost my shirt, these same c*******ts did not want to share in my losses.

The money that I invested in America is just as valuable as the hardest working laborer. It has been shown innumerable times that overtaxing capital is a surefire recipe for economic disaster.

Thanks for the comment.

It can all be done fairly.

You say Labor is nothing without Capital. Perhaps you have overstated your case. Compared with your statement, I could as easily say that Capital is nothing without Labor (which is still not entirely true, but it's at least as true as your statement).

Yet more basically, people have value whether there is money or not. (The opposite is not true. Money is worthless without people.) In some rare places and times, people might live very easily; but generally they will do some kind of work. Money is needed (if it is needed at all) merely as medium of exchange.

I'm not anti-investment, except where investment were somehow unfair or overly damaging to something else.

Getting back to the earlier ideas, taxation systems can be judged according to fairness. And (in deference to the Topic of the Original Poster), capitalism and other economic systems can be judged according to fairness.

They might be judged in other ways too, but fairness is probably the most interesting and important way.