Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit

[Roy L]

If nobody wants to sell me land in Manhattan the supply of land in Manhattan is zero.

What is it that they are declining to sell you, then? Peanut butter?

Ooops.

How hard is that.

It's hard to credit that a human being could even imagine himself putting over a claim so self-evidently and indisputably false, absurd, and dishonest.

But when you have been advocating LVT as long as I have, you learn just what absurdity and dishonesty human beings are capable of when they decide to serve evil.

 

[Roy L]

Nothing to say to that, really, since your head is floating perpetually in macroeconomic theory clouds, and completely disconnected from reality.

You're objectively wrong and you know it.

Nobody cares about what you "pointed out", least of all me.

I realize you don't care about facts, logic or honesty.

I pointed out that you were wrong, and pointed out where and why you were wrong.

No, you merely tried to substitute your incorrect definition for the correct one.

Did that make a difference to you? Or did you just disagree, and predictably dismiss it as so much evil, lies, and despicable filth?

It was certainly that. Thanks for admitting it.

It just wasn't your conveniently preferred (in this case macroeconomic) definition, Roy. As usual.

There is no macroeconomic definition of supply. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. As usual.

Oh yeah? WHOSE willingness to sell, Roy? WHOSE? Everyone's?

The owner's.

Does the market price of one person's house imply a willingness to sell, let alone at that price, on the parts of all of his neighbors who are not selling, and have no intention or willingness to sell?

They are willing to sell at the market prices of their own properties, by definition. The point is, they are not willing to sell any more or less than their properties, no matter how high or low those prices might be. You just permanently refuse to understand that fact.

That's your ugly collectivist soup, Roy. That's your presumptuous collectivist mental tentacles reaching out and fabricating, imputing, and projecting utterly false assumptions onto others.

It's true by definition.

Icky nasty, Roy. Shame on you.

You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself.

We've been the rounds on that one.

And you lost.

You conveniently use the definition of market price as the only meaning for all usage of the word price.

IT IS THE RELEVANT SENSE.

The moment the word "price" is invoked, you immediately think market price only -- the price something actually DID sell for.

THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS.

In the past.

Or the present or future.

It is in that way that your collectivist poopy-pants tentacles can reach out to everyone else, and presume that they are all sellers, and that all goods and services are part of your favored, strictly macroeconomic definition, of "supply".

All goods in existence are part of the supply. The point of elasticity of supply for produced goods is that MORE of them will exist at higher prices and less at lower ones. That is not the case with land. It's just that simple.

Doesn't it make you physically ill that the real world doesn't conform to your preferred definitions?

It does. Which is why Manhattan doesn't get any bigger or smaller depending on landowners' whims.

 

[Roy L]

Here is a point: you have not convinced any one here of the validity of your tax the privilege scheme. Thats a big fat fail in my book.

Just because you refuse to know facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil doesn't mean others similarly lack moral and intellectual courage. If defeating evil ideas was easy, we'd be living in a utopia already.

 

[Roy L]

There's no incentive to build vertically under the LVT.

More accurately, there's no extra incentive, only the free market's invisible hand incentive to use resources efficiently.

 

[idiom]

What is it that they are declining to sell you, then? Peanut butter?

I missed the part where I got supplied with land...

 

[Roy L]

Bullshit. It can and is, and that's easily proved.

Nope.

If a Perfectly Benevolent Landlord bought land for the sole purpose of allowing the poor to use his superior land at the lowest possible costs to themselves, and without any profits (or losses) to the landlord himself - just a pure break even - the MINIMUM COST that the landlord would need to pass along, or SHIFT proportionately, would be that cost levied by the land value tax itself.

BZZZZZZZZZZT. Fail. That's not a market transaction. You could with equal "logic" claim that a sales tax is NOT passed on to consumers because some benevolent store owner might decide to reduce all his prices proportionally. You're simply not talking about economics any more, but only about whether some philanthropist can still afford to indulge his charitable impulse.

The second proof - the falsification of that bunk claim that land rents cannot be passed along or shifted to tenants:

I sense that you are about to humiliate yourself again by essaying a fallacious, absurd and dishonest "argument," as you did above.

It is possible for a landlord to make all LVT payments without any other source of income besides rents from his tenants.

Correct.

How is that possible without the land rents being shifted to those tenants -- given that the tenants are the ONLY ONES producing anything in that particular scenario, and the only ones paying out any money at all?

They are paying all they are willing to pay in any case: i.e., the exact same amount they would be willing to pay the landowner if he was just pocketing the rents. So their burden is unchanged, and none of the tax has been shifted onto them. Only the landowner loses by the tax, which proves he cannot shift any of the burden onto his tenants.

Is the landlord "paying" that, or is he just acting as a go-between as he takes from the tenants and gives it over to the fucking state!

He is acting as a go-between. He is paying the full tax because the value of his land has been removed. No one will be willing to pay him anything for it, because it won't entitle them to pocket any rent. He has therefore shouldered the entire burden of the tax.

Not so slippery fast. We were talking about supply. You know, the actual economic definition of supply, which makes it a price-dependent variable, even with land.

No, not with land, nor with anything else in fixed supply, like the paintings of a dead artist.

The entire amount of land in existence is not "the supply".

Yes, in fact, it is.

They are not the same thing, remember?

They are when supply is fixed.

In the market/economic sense of supply, "come into existence" means "a given quantity is made available by a given seller at a given price over a given period of time".

No, it doesn't. It means that more exists because MORE IS PRODUCED. As land is not produced (by human labor at any rate), no more comes into existence. That is very much the point.

That is based on FIVE specific variables (ability to sell, willingness to sell -- a given quantity, at a given price, over a given period of time). That applies to anything (including land).

No, it does not, as land is not produced over time and can only be sold or not sold.

If an LVT of $ONE ZILLLION-GAZILLLION was levied (Land Rents times infinity),

LVT can't raise more than land rent times 1, because trying to raise more makes land value go negative.

the "supply" of land, given that NOBODY could afford to pay the land rents, would be 100%. Supply can go to 100% in theory, but never beyond that.

The supply of land is always 100%.

And remember (VERY IMPORTANT, NEVER FORGET) that supply is a function of price, as well as quantity and time.

Except when supply is fixed.

Nearly ALL supply (of anything) theoretically approaches 100% of whatever is humanly available as the price approaches 100% of whatever is humanly possible. So why feign poop-stupid and pretend that claims of infinite supply are being made?

That comment is meaningless, poop-stupid gibberish with no basis in economic fact.

See that, Matt? LVT "...promotes vertical, rather than horizontal, development..." A claim made countless times by LVT proponents.

It would be more accurate to say that it removes the subsidy to sprawl.

That's the trouble with being a blind-faith supporter of something you obviously don't fully understand.

LOL! As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

[EcoWarrier]

the fact remains that the LVT cannot be passed on to tenants.

That just needs narrowing down more. LVT can be passed onto the tenants. But not all of it as the misinformed think. If we changed over to LVT tomorrow the rents would not rise, as the market dictates the maximum rent tenants pay. If a landlord increased the rent, the tenant will move off. Landlords always charge the maximum they can get at any time. There will be no great incentive for a landlord to raise rent under LVT as he will not be pay Income, Sales and other stealth taxes.

You just can't get anything right regarding LVT.

Steven gets many things wrong. He doen't know what is good for himself. He also has a friend called Norman.

 

[Roy L]

I missed the part where I got supplied with land...

<sigh> You missed a lot of parts of a lot of things.

The supply of peanut butter doesn't mean YOU get supplied. It means it's available for a price, same as the land. If the price of peanut butter goes up, more will be produced. But if the price of land goes up, no more will be produced. That's all fixed supply means.

You will now refuse to know that fact. Again.

 

[idiom]

Lets try a different approach to understand what geonomists are actually trying to claim.

Meet the O'Neill Cylinder. Its a proposed space colony that houses and feeds and employs millions.

LVT could not be applied here because there is no natural land here.

Geonomics would suggest that this colony with a large and dynamic economy would never experience a bust or boom simply because there is no natural land and thus no speculation on land.

Nobody would be able to amass a dishonest fortune here, there would be fortunes just not dishonest ones.

Nobody would be poor here.

There would be no unemployment.

There would be no layabout landlords here.

There would be no ongoing inflation.

The work week would be shorter.

There would be no black market.

If a government was to spend money here none of it would be embezzled.

And this is without LVT, simply because there is no natural land.

 

[EcoWarrier]

I keep returning to the question: Why are you here? Milton Friedman must have a forum some where, and Ron Paul would not agree with anything you say.

Geoism is true economic freedom. That is what this forum is about.

Most here confused freedom with freeloading. The current system encourages freeloading. Many of richest people in the western world freedload. Freeloading brought down the world economies in 1929 and 2008.

 

[Roy L]

LVT can be passed onto the tenants.

No, it can't.

But not all of it as the misinformed think. If we changed over to LVT tomorrow the rents would not rise, as the market dictates the maximum rent tenants pay. If a landlord increased the rent, the tenant will move off.

Right.

Landlords always charge the maximum they can get at any time.

No, they don't. That's just an assumption in economics. Many landlords are lazy, and don't try to get all the rent they can. Certainly I didn't when I was a landlord. It wasn't worth it because the market was imperfect in so many other ways. Some landlords raise rents when they get an increased property tax assessment; but again, that's just a lazy way of learning that the market rent has increased.

There will be no great incentive for a landlord to raise rent under LVT as he will not be pay Income, Sales and other stealth taxes.

Incentive has nothing to do with it. He can't affect supply or demand, so he can't affect price.

Steven gets many things wrong.

And one of them is the same thing you just got wrong....

He doen't know what is good for himself.

True. Which wouldn't be a problem, if he didn't insist on imposing what is bad for himself on everyone else, too.

 

[EcoWarrier]

Land rent makes the Kuomintang the richest political party in the world. ... they also collect an enormous amount of graft.

This clearly shows the level of indocrinated freeloading mentality. He deliberately missed out the important bit. Here is is :

Land rent makes the Kuomintang (KMT), the corrupt ruling party that has been in power since Chiang Kai-shek took refuge on Formosa over fifty years ago, the richest political party in the world. Not only does the KMT own about a quarter of the island's economy legally, they also collect an enormous amount of graft. Usually, where governments are this corrupt, the people are impoverished. But not the Taiwanese. Their per capita income is probably second to Hong Kong's. ​

Jeff Smith is clearly saying despite the corrupt governmnet, LVT ensures the Taiwanese economy is one of the most dynamic in the world. Anyone can see what Jeff Smith was saying, but these brainwashed freeloaders even try and twist the truth. Sad isn't it.

 

[EcoWarrier]

No, it can't.

Roy, it can. A part of it will be passed on. Not all and probably only a minority of the LVT due, but some will. But the prime point is that: rents will not rise because of LVT, they will stay the same dictated by the market. The tenant cares not a hoot what the landlord's expenses are, only what he pays in rent.

Many landlords are lazy, and don't try to get all the rent they can. Certainly I didn't when I was a landlord. It wasn't worth it because the market was imperfect in so many other ways. Some landlords raise rents when they get an increased property tax assessment; but again, that's just a lazy way of learning that the market rent has increased.

I agree. When I was a landlord I was reluctant to raise the rent as if the tenant moved off I may lose 1 to 2 months in rent which would take a while to claw back with the increased rent I charge with a new tenant. Just a pure simple business decision.

 

[Roy L]

Ah lets examine that broadly distributed prosperity...

The policies of the Kuomintang after 1945 (LVT Land Reforms) were in many ways similar and just as devastating as those of the Japanese.

You again demonstrate the utter dishonesty invariably displayed by the anti-LVT attack dog. You inserted "LVT Land Reforms" in the above sentence, which did not apppear in the original, as seen here:

http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5589&tmpl=printpage

You committed that despicably dishonest act to make it seem that LVT was part of the devastating Japanese occupation policies, which it was not.

All land in the mountain areas was nationalised, for example, with Aborigines retaining only limited use rights;

Which increased broad-based prosperity by opening up opportunities to use such lands to more people than the 2% of the population that was aboriginal.

just as the Japanese had done, the Kuomintang authorities adopted policies designed to assimilate the indigenous populations, prohibiting the teaching of their languages and prescribing not only the use of Mandarin, but also the adoption of Chinese names...

So now LVT is even being blamed for the widespread assimilationist policies pursued by the governments of most advanced countries until a few decades ago. How predictably dishonest.

Legislation adopted in 1968, ostensibly to protect Aboriginal lands, in reality had the almost contrary effect: unless land was cultivated for 10 years, it became state property. This meant that Aborigines had to abandon their traditional hunting, gathering, and slash-and-burn agricultural activities, thus signaling a near deathblow to many aspects of their cultures.

But increasing broad-based prosperity, as I said. Modern intensive agriculture is far more productive than hunting, gathering, and slash-and-burn agriculture, and Taiwan's aboriginal people are now far better off than they were before the land reforms.

The legislation also contained a number of ways for government and Han Chinese individuals and corporations to ‘lease' land for commercial and other uses, and these often resulted in further disenfranchising indigenous peoples from any real control over their remaining land."

"Their" land? Question begging fallacy. The FACT is, Taiwan's aboriginal people are far more prosperous since the LVT-based land reforms that "disenfranchised" them.

 

[Roy L]

Roy, it can. A part of it will be passed on. Not all and probably only a minority of the LVT due, but some will.

No. It won't and can't. None of it.

 

[idiom]

You again demonstrate the utter dishonesty invariably displayed by the anti-LVT attack dog. You inserted "LVT Land Reforms" in the above sentence, which did not apppear in the original, as seen here:

http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5589&tmpl=printpage

Which increased broad-based prosperity by opening up opportunities to use such lands to more people than the 2% of the population that was aboriginal.

"Their" land? Question begging fallacy. The FACT is, Taiwan's aboriginal people are far more prosperous since the LVT-based land reforms that "disenfranchised" them.

The inserted text was in parentheses and is apparent in the original at the link. I should probably have used square brackets, but they can do weird things with bb code. Only a severely poor reading would find that the Japanese had used LVT. They had used devastating policies, just not LVT ones. LVT does not have a monopoly on devastating minorities.

The entire point stands however. You see nothing wrong with moving people off their ancestral lands as long as you think it is for their own good.

Was Australia's policy of taking aboriginal children from their families and placing them in white homes justified by outcomes?

 

[Roy L]

Proof? Not even tesla can attest to it.

Google "patent troll" and start reading.

 

[idiom]

This clearly shows the level of indocrinated freeloading mentality. He deliberately missed out the important bit. Here is is :

Land rent makes the Kuomintang (KMT), the corrupt ruling party that has been in power since Chiang Kai-shek took refuge on Formosa over fifty years ago, the richest political party in the world. Not only does the KMT own about a quarter of the island's economy legally, they also collect an enormous amount of graft. Usually, where governments are this corrupt, the people are impoverished. But not the Taiwanese. Their per capita income is probably second to Hong Kong's. ​

Jeff Smith is clearly saying despite the corrupt governmnet, LVT ensures the Taiwanese economy is one of the most dynamic in the world. Anyone can see what Jeff Smith was saying, but these brainwashed freeloaders even try and twist the truth. Sad isn't it.

Taiwan is ranked 21st. But yeah. Thats kinda like 2nd.

The 'Taiwanese' got their kick by looting the entire gold reserve and intelligentsia of a major power then invading country and seizing the land of the locals and redistributing it. They executed a few very prudent Stalinist industrial plans which ended up being perfectly timed.

While they still have LVT they are running out of golden eggs. They have a bubble economy and runaway public debt.

But yeah, rah rah LVT.

 

[Roy L]

Lets try a different approach to understand what geonomists are actually trying to claim.

You will now lie about what geonomists claim.

Meet the O'Neill Cylinder. Its a proposed space colony that houses and feeds and employs millions.
LVT could not be applied here because there is no natural land here.
Geonomics would suggest that this colony with a large and dynamic economy would never experience a bust or boom simply because there is no natural land and thus no speculation on land.

No, it would just never experience a land boom or bust.

Nobody would be able to amass a dishonest fortune here, there would be fortunes just not dishonest ones.

No, there'd just be no opportunity to amass a dishonest fortune by owning land.

Nobody would be poor here.

That's quite likely: it would be very expensive to live there.

There would be no unemployment.

As above.

There would be no layabout landlords here.

Definitely not!

There would be no ongoing inflation.

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon that is worsened by land speculation in our debt-money economy, but is not a direct result of landowner privilege.

The work week would be shorter.

Doubtful.

There would be no black market.

Hard to say.

If a government was to spend money here none of it would be embezzled.

Blatant strawman.

And this is without LVT, simply because there is no natural land.

Some people do claim too much for LVT, but I've never seen anything like the above.

 

[Roy L]

The 'Taiwanese' got their kick by looting the entire gold reserve and intelligentsia of a major power then invading country and seizing the land of the locals and redistributing it. They executed a few very prudent Stalinist industrial plans which ended up being perfectly timed.

Sorta like the Soviets did in Eastern Europe?

While they still have LVT they are running out of golden eggs. They have a bubble economy and runaway public debt.

Absurd claims with no basis in fact.