Resolved: The United States ought to

adopt a wealth tax.

Introduction

Position
Western negates.

Definitions
Western defines ‘Georgism’ as the implementation of a tax system in which
unimproved land value is taxed at 20% per year.

Kase

Theory of Power
Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies
— it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.
Winston Churchill was an inspirational statesman, writer, orator and leader who led Britain to victory in the Second World War. He served as Conservative Prime
Minister twice - from 1940 to 1945 (before being defeated in the 1945 general election by the Labour leader Clement Attlee) and from 1951 to 1955.
Churchill 1909,

[Churchill, Winston. Winston Churchill on Land Monopoly. Speech made to the House of Commons,
bibliotek1.dk/english/the-land-question/winston-churchill-on-land-monopoly. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.]

Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies —
it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.

Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned
increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to

the general public.

Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position — land, I say, differs from all other forms of property, and the immemorial customs of nearly every modern state have
placed the tenure, transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from other classes of property.

Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of land monopolists to claim that other forms of property and increment are similar in all respects to land and the unearned increment on land.

They talk of the increased profits of a doctor or lawyer from the growth of population in the town in which they live. They talk of the profits of a railway, from the growing wealth and activity in the districts through which it runs. They talk of the profits from a rise in stocks and even
the profits derived from the sale of works of art.

But see how misleading and false all those analogies are. The windfalls from the sale of a picture — a Van Dyke or a Holbein — may be very considerable. But pictures do not get in anybody’s way. They do not lay a toll on anybody’s labor; they do not touch enterprise and production;
they do not affect the creative processes on which the material well-being of millions depends.

If a rise in stocks confers profits on the fortunate holders far beyond what they expected or indeed deserved, nevertheless that profit was not reaped by withholding from the community the land which it needs; on the contrary, it was reaped by supplying industry with the capital
without which it could not be carried on.
If a railway makes greater profits it is usually because it carries more goods and more passengers.

If a doctor or a lawyer enjoys a better practice, it is because the doctor attends more patients and more exacting patients, and because the lawyer pleads more suits in the courts and more important suits. At every stage the doctor or the lawyer is giving service in return for his fees.

Fancy comparing these healthy processes with the enrichment which comes to the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts of a great city, who watches the busy population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient, more famous every day, and
all the while sits still and does nothing.

Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into
day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — and all
the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is affected by the
labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements
does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of
them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he
contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from
which his own enrichment is derived.
While the land is what is called “ripening” for the unearned increment of its owner, the merchant going to his office and the artisan going to his work must
detour or pay a fare to avoid it. The people lose their chance of using the land, the city and state lose the taxes which would have accrued if the natural
development had taken place, and all the while the land monopolist only has to sit still and watch complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes
many fold, without either effort or contribution on his part!

But let us follow this process a little further. The population of the city grows and grows, the congestion in the poorer quarters becomes acute, rents rise and
thousands of families are crowded into tenements. At last the land becomes ripe for sale — that means that the price is too tempting to be resisted any longer.
And then, and not until then, it is sold by the yard or by the inch at 10 times, or 20 times, or even 50 times its agricultural value.

The greater the population around the land, the greater the injury the public has
sustained by its protracted denial. And, the more inconvenience caused to everybody; the more serious the loss in economic
strength and activity — the larger will be the profit of the landlord when the sale is finally accomplished. In fact, you may say that the unearned increment on the
land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done. It is monopoly which is the keynote, and where
monopoly prevails, the greater the injury to society the greater the reward to the monopolist. This evil process strikes at every form of industrial activity. The
municipality, wishing for broader streets, better houses, more healthy, decent, scientifically planned towns, is made to pay more to get them in proportion as is
has exerted itself to make past improvements. The more it has improved the town, the more it will have to pay for any land it may now wish to acquire for
further improvements.

The manufacturer proposing to start a new industry, proposing to erect a great factory offering employment to thousands of hands, is made to pay such a price
for his land that the purchase price hangs around the neck of his whole business, hampering his competitive power in every market, clogging him far more than
any foreign tariff in his export competition, and the land price strikes down through the profits of the manufacturer on to the wages of the worker.

Average amount paid in property taxes in 2022 was $1,815

Andrey Yushkov is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Center for State Tax Policy at the Tax Foundation. He holds a PhD in public policy from Indiana University, an
MS in economics from the University of Bonn, and a BS from St. Petersburg University.
Yushkov 2024,

[Yushkov, Andrey. “Where Do People Pay the Most in Property Taxes?” Tax Foundation, 12 Sept. 2023,
taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county-2023/. ]

Because property taxes are almost invariably levied locally, and millages (rates) are not directly comparable with each other across states, providing a useful
state-level comparison can be difficult. In an effort to present a multifaceted view, today’s blog post features two maps focused on the property tax. The first
looks at median property tax bills in each county in the United States, and the second compares effective property tax rates across states.

The average level of property taxes paid in

Median property taxes paid vary widely across (and within) the 50 states.

2022 across the United States was $1,815 (with a standard deviation of $1,388).

In the United States the take-home pay of an average single worker, after tax and
benefits, was 75.8% of their gross wage in 2022
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international organisation that works to build better policies for better lives. We
draw on more than 60 years of experience and insights to shape policies that foster prosperity and opportunity, underpinned by equality and well-being.
OECD 2024,

[“Taxing Wages -the United States Tax on Labour Income.” OECD, 2024,
www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-issues/tax-policy/taxing-wages-united-states.pdf.]

In the United States, the average single worker faced a net average tax rate of 24.2% in
2023, compared with the OECD average of 24.9%. In other words, in the United States the take-home pay of an
average single worker, after tax and benefits, was 75.8% of their gross wage, compared with the
OECD average of 75.1%.

Taking into account child related benefits and tax provisions, the employee net average tax rate for an average married worker with two children in the United
States was 13.2% in 2023, which is the 25th lowest in the OECD, and compares with 14.2% for the OECD average. This means that an average married worker
with two children in the United States had a take-home pay, after tax and family benefits, of 86.8% of their gross wage, compared to 85.8% for the OECD average.

The USG sees land as a privately owned commodity and primarily taxes labor
rather than property; this system is inherently oppressive, anti-humanist, and
anti-progress.

Link
Current US tax system is poorly run and easily abused
Michelle P. Scott is a New York attorney with extensive experience in tax, corporate, financial, and nonprofit law, and public policy. As General Counsel, private
practitioner, and Congressional counsel, she has advised financial institutions, businesses, charities, individuals, and public officials, and written and lectured
extensively.
Scott 2024,

[Scott, Michelle. “What’s Wrong with the American Tax System.” Investopedia, 16 Aug. 2023,
www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/082415/whats-wrong-american-tax-system.asp.
Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.]

A fundamental question about any law is whether the law and its application are fair and effective. Reports released by the Internal Revenue Service and
analyses published by independent experts indicate that the federal tax system has increasingly failed to meet these requirements.

Taxpayers’ satisfaction and compliance with the tax system depend on their perception that the tax code imposes and authorities collect a level of tax revenue
that's adequate to support the government budget and investments for the future and that all taxpayers are paying their fair share.

E-filed tax returns for most low- and middle-income taxpayers whose earnings and investment income are reported to the IRS on information forms are
effectively audited each year when their returns are matched against these information forms.

Many of these taxpayers suspect that wealthy individuals can reduce or even avoid their tax liability through aggressive strategies that include reporting
questionable deductions and exclusions to offset income from their businesses and investment activities.

Jeff Bezos paid zero income tax in 2007 and again paid zero in
Investigative reporting has shown that

2011. Elon Musk paid no federal income tax in 2018. These two individuals were
among the top three richest people in the world as of Aug. 16, 2023.

Budgetary limitations on the Internal Revenue Service's ability to address

non-compliance have resulted in substantial shortfalls in tax revenue for years. Audit
rates and resulting declines in headcount and enforcement decreased for all individual
returns at all income levels between 2010 and 2019 because of the IRS budget
reductions. The difference between the tax revenue owed to the government and the
amount collected has increased significantly.

between 2010 and 2019 although audit rates for lower-income groups were lower than those for
The audit rate for all taxpayers fell

higher-income taxpayers. The number of audits for returns with $5 to $10 million of income fell

81% during these years. Audits for returns with income over $10 million of income fell
66%. The number of returns filed for the two groups increased by 92% and 84%
respectively over the same period.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. “Tax Compliance: Trends of IRS Audit Rates and Results for Individual Taxpayers by Income.”

The IRS failed to collect $496 billion due in all tax categories between 2014 and 2016. It's
estimated that the IRS failed to collect $600 billion in taxes in 2022. The tax gap will
rise to $7.6 trillion between 2020 and 2029 unless IRS resources are increased. The IRS
complains that the largest portion of that gap is due to underreported taxes, then the underpayment of taxes, and lastly by individuals not filing taxes at all.

Taxpayers who complied with tax laws found it disquieting that IRS budgets and enforcement activities have declined markedly since 2010. The IRS statistics as
well as expert analyses and general media reports revealed that it's conducting fewer audits with the most significant reductions occurring in audits of wealthy
individuals, large corporations, and pass-through businesses and their owners.

The Norwegian wealth tax, which was projected to increase revenue by nearly $150
million annually, will result in about 40 percent less revenue than it currently
generates.
Jonathan Miltimore is Senior Editor at AIER. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, and the Star Tribune.
He is a contributor at the Washington Examiner and has had bylines in Fox News, Newsweek, National Review, the Epoch Times, Real Clear Politics, the
Washington Times, and other media.
Prior to joining AIER, Jon served in editorial roles at the History Channel magazine and the Foundation for Economic Education. He also served in the Bush
Administration as an intern in the Department of Speechwriting.
Miltimore 23,

[Miltimore, Jon. “Norway’s Wealth Tax Is Backfiring. Are Americans Paying Attention? | the Daily
Economy.” Thedailyeconomy.org, The Daily Economy, 23 June 2023,
thedailyeconomy.org/article/norways-wealth-tax-is-backfiring-are-americans-paying-attention/.
Accessed 28 Oct. 2024.]
In 2022 Norway’s third richest man, Kjell Inge Røkke, announced in an open letter to shareholders he was moving to Lugano, Switzerland.

“My capital will continue working in Norway,” wrote the fishing magnate turned industrialist who launched his empire four decades ago with a 69-foot trawler he bought while saving money working on ships off the coast of Alaska.

Røkke, who Forbes estimates has a fortune of $5.1 billion, will cost the Norwegian government an estimated 175,000,000 kroner annually (roughly $16 million)
with his departure. That might not sound like a lot of money, but Røkke is not the only wealthy entrepreneur leaving Norway, The Guardian notes.

“More than 30 Norwegian billionaires and multimillionaires left Norway in 2022, according
to research by the newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv,” reports wealth correspondent Rupert Neate. “This was more than the total

number of super-rich people who left the country during the previous 13 years, [the paper]
added.”

Did you catch that? More “super rich” Norwegians left Norway in 2022 than during the previous 13 years combined. The reason wealthy Norwegians are fleeing
the country is not a secret.
Following its 2021 electoral victory, the Nordic nation’s Labor Party made good on its promise to soak the rich. Norway is one of just a handful of OECD countries
that still taxes net wealth, and the Labor Party increased the country’s wealth tax to 1.1 percent despite warnings that such a move would “trigger capital flight
and threaten job creation.”

Capital flight is exactly what happened, and it has left the Norwegian government with less revenue.

Norwegian Business School professor emeritus Ole Gjems-Onstad estimated that the
wealthy Norwegians took with them a total fortune of $54 billion [dollars] when they
left. This means that the wealth tax, which was projected to increase revenue by
nearly $150 million [dollars] annually, will result in about 40 percent less revenue than
it currently generates. Luca Dellanna, a management advisor and author, points out that Norway collected about $1.46 billion on its wealth
tax in 2019. But the exodus of the wealthy will result in an estimated $594 million in lost revenue.

Those trying to understand how Norway’s policy could backfire so badly should look to the work of the late NobelPrize-winning economist
Robert Lucas. Lucas, a longtime professor at the University of Chicago, received the top prize in economics for research that became known as the Lucas
Critique, which exposed various problems with macroeconomic modeling.

Lucas believedthat to predict policy outcomes it was essential to first grasp that all action is individual
behavior, and humans are rational creatures who will respond to policies in rational ways — even to
policies designed to fool them.
“Microeconomics assumed people were rational,” economist David R. Henderson pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal article following Lucas’s death. “Why shouldn’t macroeconomics make the same assumption?”

This insight helped Lucas win the Nobel Prize, and it helps explain why Norway’s wealth tax backfired so badly. It was always naive to assume wealthy individuals would continue to bear Norway’s wealth tax. After all, one needn’t have a PhD in economics to realize that wealthy
people are unlikely to sit idly by as lawmakers take more and more of their wealth (not income, mind you, wealth). As early as the 17th century, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the finance minister to France’s Louis XIV, observed the delicate nature of taxation.

“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing,” wrote Colbert.

Norwegian lawmakers forgot this simple lesson, and now they can do little but watch as the wealth creators in their country depart, taking with them their capital, ingenuity, and taxable income.

“Atlas shrugs in Norway,” observed economist Peter St Onge.

Indeed.

As it happens, Norway’s unfortunate lack of foresight comes at an opportune time for those living in the United States, where many are pushing wealth taxes.

Earlier this year, the Washington Post reported on the creative methods federal and state lawmakers are devising to separate “the rich” from their wealth. These include no fewer than four states attempting to tax unrealized capital gains, including a California proposal that would
impose a 1.5 percent wealth tax (even higher than Norway’s).

“If it’s an annual wealth tax, it’s taking a fraction of your wealth every year,” Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, who helped design Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal, told the Post. “Almost by definition, you’re going to have less wealth after you pay the tax.”

If professor Saez believes California’s wealthiest people will allow lawmakers to tax their wealth and make them sell shares to cover unrealized capital gains, he hasn’t learned Colbert’s lesson on taxation.

Such a policy wouldn’t just result in a great deal of hissing. It would lead to a mass exodus of wealth creators. Anyone who doubts this need only look to Norway.

The wealthy migrate to low tax areas

Content specialist with a Master of Arts degree in Career & Technical Education. Published content on Business Insider, The Huffington Post, Lifescript, Medium,
EmaxHealth, Technorati and many other publications. Master of Arts degree in Career & Technical Education.
Mancini 2024,

[Mancini, Jeannine. “Where Are the Rich Americans Moving This Year, and What States Are They
Leaving?” Yahoo.com, Yahoo Finance, 24 Jan. 2024,
finance.yahoo.com/news/where-rich-americans-moving-states-180552950.html. Accessed 29 Oct.
2024.]

The migration of high-income earners in the United States has led to significant shifts in the economic landscape. In recent years, particularly during the

there has been a substantial exodus of high earners from major cities, with IRS
pandemic,

data showing that large urban counties lost over $68 billion in taxable income from net
migration between 2020 and 2021. Large coastal cities like Manhattan, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles experienced
particularly large flights of income.

This trend is reflected in the destinations chosen by these high earners, with many
relocating to states like Florida, Texas and Arizona. Florida leads the nation in net income migration, attracting
high-income earners with its financial landscape and debtor protections. Texas follows with a $10.7 billion net gain, and Arizona boasts a $9.4 billion net gain,
both offering favorable tax structures and thriving business environments.
 California, New York and Illinois are seeing significant outflows of
On the other hand,

high-income earners because of high personal income tax rates and cost of living, with
California experiencing a net loss of $343.2 million​​.
The most moved-to states in 2023 included South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arizona and Florida, with cities like Tucson, Arizona; Charleston, South
Carolina; Charlotte, North Carolina; Nashville, Tennessee; and Raleigh, North Carolina being particularly attractive because of their low cost of living, reasonable
housing prices and access to outdoor recreational opportunities. South Carolina was the most popular state to move to in 2023, experiencing twice as many
moves into the state as people leaving​​.

High-income earners considering a move can benefit from consulting a local financial adviser. Financial advisers can provide tailored guidance on managing
wealth, optimizing tax benefits and making informed financial decisions in the context of their relocation.

The trend of wealth migration also is becoming more pronounced, with wealth
gravitating toward regions like Florida and Texas with more accommodating tax
policies. The shift is driven by the absence of personal income tax in these states and
by factors like lifestyle preferences and business opportunities. The economic implications of this wealth
migration are profound and far-reaching, affecting various sectors including commercial real estate and job markets.

The migration trends offer a clear view of how economic and fiscal policies at the state level significantly influence wealth distribution across the U.S. The
departure of high-income earners from states like California, New York and Illinois, and their influx into states like Florida, Texas and Arizona, underscores the
impact of state tax policies and cost of living on migration decisions.

Wealth taxes face significant problems in implementation

Richard J. Shinder is the founder and Managing Partner of Theatine Partners. He has 30 years’ experience as a financial services professional, working in
restructuring advisory, distressed investing, direct lending, and leveraged and project finance roles throughout the course of his career.Mr. Shinder earned an
MBA with distinction from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and graduated summa cum laude from Gonzaga University in Spokane,
Washington.
Shinder 2024,

[Shinder, Richard. “5 Reasons Why a Wealth Tax Is Bad Policy.” The Hill, 20 July 2024,
thehill.com/opinion/finance/4782461-wealth-tax-supreme-court-decision/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.]

Wealth can be difficult to measure. Unlike flow figures, stock values are often estimates. While companies with publicly traded
shares report a closing price every business day, significant wealth exists in the form of illiquid assets of

uncertain value: privately held companies, real estate, fine art, collectibles, jewelry, etc. The infrastructure required to
administer a wealth tax, including estimating and adjudicating the value of such assets,
combined with the inherent conflict associated with IRS officials structurally incentivized to err to the higher side, present significant

opportunities for abuse.

The taxable obligation is wholly detached from a liquidity event. Unlike income and capital gains taxes, a wealth tax is entirely untethered from a liquidity event.
“Asset-rich, cash-poor” taxpayers may be forced to sell assets to meet their tax obligations, risking destabilizing asset and capital markets.

What happens when assets go down in value? The existing U.S. tax code incorporates a measure of symmetry, in that taxable losses can be used to offset income
or gains (even if their use is capped and/or deferred); large swings in asset prices — not difficult to imagine when considering the stock market’s oscillations —

There is also the risk of “procyclicality”: a tax

could create significant volatility and unpredictability in tax collections.

regime in which wealth-related losses in a given year can yield tax credits, refunds or
simply lower receipts would risk reducing federal tax revenue just as asset prices are
collapsing, straining both the real economy and the public fisc.
Double-dipping (or worse). Many Americans loathe the federal estate tax precisely because it taxes at death the stock of one’s accumulated income (or wealth),
which had previously been subjected to annual income taxation. Introducing a wealth tax could triple-tax the same dollar earned first as income, then as wealth
and ultimately as a taxable estate upon death. These tax structures would either coexist as a potential “triple whammy” to taxpayers or necessitate a dog’s
breakfast of credits and offsets among the various tax regimes, further complicating an already Byzantine tax code.

A vast piggy bank, broken wide open. The massive amount of wealth created by the U.S. economy over the last four decades would offer big spenders in
Washington a golden opportunity to further increase the size and scope of the federal government. It requires little imagination to envision Senator Warren’s 2
percent levy on wealth above $50 million gradually increasing, or seeing the threshold reduced, once the infrastructure for such a tax is in place.

The taxing of intangible assets such as wealth as a means of tax reform has and will
continue to fail because it attempts to “fix” a broken system by making it more complex
and the rich will simply hide their assets or move elsewhere

Impact
The aff has no solvency on wealth gap because it perpetuates an oppressive
system that benefits the rich and increases poverty and possible tax revenue is
negated by tax evasion and superrich migration. The aff assumes the
commodification of land is just and may continue, while attacking mere
symptoms of land inequality and refusing to implement a real solution. Truly
mitigating the wealth gap would require a federal overhaul of the tax system and
the implementation of Georgist policy.

Alternative

Implement Georgism
Transition the US tax system over a period of 20 years. Put a 20% tax on
unimproved land value in its place with a 12.5% consumption tax. The raised
land taxes will correspond to an equal decrease in other forms of taxes that will
eventually be abolished.

KAD1: housing is a human right- city compactfulness and incentivizing selling

An LVT would force those holding unused land to sell their property to someone who
will
Tax attorney and writer specializing in tax law, technology, and policy. Writes a weekly column for Bloomberg Tax called "Technically Speaking."
Leahey 2024,

[Leahey, Andrew. “Land Value Taxes Can Resolve Property Tax Systems’ Inequities.” Bloomberg Tax, 17
Sept. 2024,
news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/land-value-taxes-can-resolve-property-tax-syst
ems-inequities. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.]

A land value tax could break the cycle by shifting tax bases away from improvements and onto the land itself. This would be more equitable and productive,
addressing some shortcomings of traditional property tax policies.

LVTs don’t punish homeowners or developers for construction, renovation, or improvement. Instead, they make underutilized land
more expensive than productive land, encouraging development and deterring land
speculation.

A switch to an LVT in an area with large amounts of undeveloped land or abandoned

properties immediately would cause some property holders to reevaluate the
profitability of leaving property fallow. They would face financial pressure either to
develop the land or sell it to someone who will.

More homes would be sold and built, reducing the housing crisis
Jerusalem Demsas is a Staff Writer at The Atlantic where she writes about institutional failure, particularly as it relates to housing and infrastructure in
Democratic states and cities, touching on issues of citizen voice, gentrification, and interstate mobility. She has written extensively on housing policy and
NIMBY-ism both at The Atlantic and at her previous outlet, Vox, where she co-hosted the politics and policy podcast The Weeds.
Demsas 2022,

[Demsas, Jerusalem. “Tax the Land.” Vox, 4 Mar. 2022,

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22951092/land-tax-housing-crisis. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.]

Under a land value tax system, proponents say property owners would be clamoring to
be allowed to develop their land more intensely — leading to more homes being built.

Here’s the theory: Taxing land reduces the profit that comes from just owning a piece of
property. Instead, you are incentivized to put that land to work. Let’s take a plot of land near Times Square. That land is so valuable, basically anything
you do with it will turn a massive profit so no need to develop it for its most valuable use.

if a land tax were to be levied, the owner of that land would need to make sure
However,

that the property on that land was actually profitable since the government is taxing
away some or all of the land rents that could be charged.
In a 2015 Slate article, Henry Grabar illustrated this point well, pointing to the case of a parking lot charging drivers $40 per day for parking and accruing under
$10,000 in property taxes. That parking lot, Grabar writes, sits next to a seven-story building that requires more than a quarter of a million in taxes annually.

“It turns NIMBYs into YIMBYs,” explained economist Noah Smith, who has written about land taxes. “You leverage the same toxic local politics that are now
creating NIMBY-ism, you leverage for YIMBY-ism because now you have people wanting to build stuff.”

In Allentown, Pennsylvania, the system worked! According to a 2019 Strong Towns article, after the city adopted an
LVT (through a split-rate system that still kept some property taxes in place) in 1996,
“construction returned to the city: the number of taxable building permits surged past
neighboring Bethlehem, market investment returned and capital improvement
reappeared in city budgets. ... The losers in this trade were absentee owners of vacant
lots, who had to shoulder much more of the burden.”

LVT would incentivize compact city growth and responsible land use
The Library of Economic Possibility’s mission is to advance public knowledge of powerful economic policies. They pull together the scattered landscape of
empirical research, organize it in one modern database, and make it accessible to everyone.
Library of Economic Possibility 2023,

[“Land Value Tax | LEP Policy Report.” Library of Economic Possibility, 24 Feb. 2023,
www.economicpossibility.org/reports/land-value-tax#WhatIsLandValueTax? Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.]

LVTs incentivize compact city growth by incentivizing new developments on and

around existing developments, which restrains growth from consuming more land. 78% of
Americans favor the mitigation of such “urban sprawl” in land use planning.

In Pennsylvania, cities that

Evidence from real-world experiments generally supports the assertion that LVTs promote urban development.

adopted split-rate LVTs (the form of LVT where tax rates on land are raised while those
on capital improvements are lowered, but not eliminated) saw higher levels of
construction activity than they would have had they stayed with single-rate property
taxes. Similarly, split-rate taxation is shown to increase the number of building permits awarded .
In Pittsburgh, shifting toward higher land taxation led to a 70.4% increase in average annual building permit values. Over the same period, 15 other Eastern cities
experienced a 14.4% decrease. The Pittsburgh city council president stated : “I’m not going to say the land tax is the only reason a second renaissance occurred,
but it’s been a big help.”

Econometric simulations for both Oregon and New York City also predict that land
value taxation would promote development and spur growth.

KAD2: same/less firm taxes = innovation unburdened/greater worker take home

Small businesses pay, on average, between 13.3% and 26.9% tax

Nationwide is one of the largest insurance and financial services companies in the world.
Nationwide website,

[“How Much Do Small Businesses Pay in Taxes? – Nationwide.” Www.nationwide.com,

www.nationwide.com/business/solutions-center/finances/how-much-small-businesses-pay-taxes. ]

The average small business pays 19.8% of its annual gross income in taxes.1 But every dollar counts when you’re running a small business, and dollars spent on
taxes are no exception. Imagine planning for things like payroll and other operating costs without knowing what percentage of your revenue will go to taxes – you
simply couldn’t do it. That’s why it’s crucial for every small business owner to understand the numerous factors affecting the taxes they’ll owe.

When you think about business taxes, you might picture a corporation. But in reality, most small businesses don’t pay business taxes. That’s because sole
proprietorships, partnerships and limited liability companies (LLCs) pay taxes at the owner’s personal rate — not as a separate corporation. You can see this

The average for all small businesses may be

illustrated in the average tax rate disparities for different business types.

19.8%, but for sole proprietorships, it’s 13.3%, for small partnerships it’s 23.6%, and
for small S corporations it’s 26.9%. There are other factors that affect a small business’s tax rate as well, such as the state where it’s
located and how the business is structured. Keep reading to learn more about small business income tax.

The United States imposes a tax on the profits of US resident corporations at a rate
of 21 percent
The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center aims to improve tax and fiscal policy decision-making by producing independent, timely, and accessible analysis. TPC also
plays a critical role in providing basic education about the tax code for policymakers, advocates, journalists, and the broader public.
TPC 2024,
[“How Does the Corporate Income Tax Work?” Tax Policy Center, Jan. 2024,
taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-corporate-income-tax-work. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.]

The United States imposes a tax on the profits of US resident corporations at a rate of
21 percent (reduced from 35 percent by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act). The corporate income tax raised $424.7 billion in fiscal year 2022, accounting
for 8.7 percent of total federal receipts and 1.7 percent of GDP.

Firms would be paying either the same or far less on taxes total, meaning there
would be no economic fallout, mass layoffs, or pay cuts. Additionally, startups
and businesses that do not have an in person front will have no tax blocks in the
way of starting their business; creating a good market for growth and innovation.

KAD3: crack down on tax evasion

The rich use anonymous trusts to open bank accounts in tax havens
Freelances for organizations including the national ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and Southern Poverty Law Center. In the past 15 years,
has written extensively for The New York Times, New York magazine, the Nation, Details, POZ magazine and many other publications.
Murphy 2024,

[Murphy, Tim. “How the Rich Keep Their Riches out of Reach.” Mother Jones, 22 Jan. 2024,
www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/oligarch-hide-asset-rich-yacht/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.]

It’s the simplest formula in the book: Use an anonymous trust to open a bank account in a secrecy
jurisdiction. Voila: You can now do business anywhere you want, without anyone being the wiser. “If I walk in and pay cash from a Swiss bank account
or a Dubai bank account, and I go buy property in Miami or New York or wherever, then I can do it secretly,” says Gary Kalman, executive director of Transparency

there’s no requirement that anybody has to do any money laundering

International US. “And

check.” The feds say anti-money-­laundering rules for real estate are
coming…eventually.
How can someone take literal land overseas? Pass laws requiring a money
laundering check and the tax evasion problem is solved.

KAD4: funding

A 20% LVT and a 12.5% consumption tax would cover the federal budget
Michael Kumhof is Senior Research Advisor in the Research Hub. He is responsible for co-leading this new unit, and for helping to formulate and carry out key
parts of its research agenda. His previous position was Deputy Division Chief, Economic Modelling Division, IMF, where his responsibilities included the
development of the IMF’s global DSGE simulation model.
Kumhof, Michael, et al. 2021,

[Kumhof, Michael, et al. “Post-Corona Balanced-Budget Super-Stimulus: The Case for Shifting Taxes
onto Land.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3954888. Accessed 1 Nov.
2024.]

The post-Corona economic environment puts a premium on finding fiscal means to stimulate the economy while continuing to finance current levels of
expenditures and debt. We develop and carefully calibrate a model of the US economy to show that an increase in the tax rate on the value of land, balanced by
decreases in the tax rates on the incomes of capital and labor, can meet this need. We find that the US share of land in total nonfinancial assets is more than
50%, so that the tax base is very large. This is corroborated by very high quality OECD data for other industrialized economies that, almost without exception, find
land shares of between 40% and 60%. Our baseline proposed tax reform is an increase in the tax rate on the asset value of land from its current 0.55% to 5.55%,
accompanied by reductions in tax rates on capital and labor incomes of 28 and 10 percentage points, respectively. In a representative household model, this
increases welfare by 3.4% of steady state consumption, and increases output by almost 15% relative to trend. In an economy with separate groups of workers,

Welfare and
capitalists and landlords, the output gain is the same, while the welfare gain increases to 6.4% on average across the three groups.

output gains for a wealth tax that raises the same revenue, and which increases the
tax rates on capital and land equally, are only half as large as the baseline. Welfare and
output gains for an optimal tax reform, under the assumption that the tax rate on the
value of land is capped at 20%, are approximately twice as large as the baseline. This
reform raises 55% of all tax revenue through land taxes, with the remaining 45% raised
through consumption taxes, while all income taxes are abolished.

Conclusion

Crystallization
Western has proven the inherent failures in our current system and provided a
means of solving it, as well as a solution to the wealth gap that the aff and the
neg are trying to solve. Any aff plan will fail just as every tax under our current
system has before. We have proven our superiority in housing, firm taxes,
cracking down on tax evasion, and that our cp can fund itself.

Roll of the Ballot

The U.S. government fails to recognize land as property of the community and as
a result allows private individuals and corporations to sap the labor and efforts of
the community and transform them into private gains while having done no work
themselves. This system is exclusionary to the non-wealthy and serves to
perpetuate the worst aspects of capitalism; giving the rich a free ride and giving
the average American no opportunity to enter into the real estate market because
they don’t have the extra money to put down.

Thus, the U.S. tax system perpetuates oppression of the lower and middle
classes and subjects them to market fluctuations and housing crises that the rich
are immune to. It attacks labor instead of consumption with extreme negative
impacts to the average American and is set up by the rich, for the rich, in order to
maintain their monopoly over the basic human rights (i.e. housing) of the people.
The affirmative attempts to resolve inequality under this system by levying a tax
on net worth upon the wealthy; an inherently flawed plan that has no solvency
due to its focus on abstract concepts (wealth) as opposed to concrete value such
as that of land. The US tax system requires a radical change in order to
effectively break down the wealth gap and create a more equitable society. The
judge must vote negative in preference for our superior counterplan for taxing.