Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit

[erowe1]

The solution, then, is to have the beneficiaries of the privilege compensate those who are deprived as a result of the privilege; ie, the landowner compensates the rest of society, who now must do without use of that location.

And by "the rest of society," you mean a group of politicians who claim to represent society and to have the special right to allocate "society's" money on behalf of society, so as to satisfy various special interest groups that empower them?

 

[MattintheCrown]

If, for example, I decided I could afford to pay $1000 a month towards a place to live and wanted to buy one, without a tax, I would look at property where my payments for ownership were $1000. But if there was a monthly tax of $200, then I am only going to consider properties where my costs would be $800 instead of $1000.

Hmm. Wouldn't that not only be the case for you, but also everyone else? Whatever one was willing/able to pay for land, he'd now only be willing/able to pay that much less the tax burden.

What effect do you suppose that would have on the prices landowners generally got for land? It seems to me pretty obvious it would reduce -in fact come out of- prices. Wouldn't we then say that the landowner bears the tax burden? Wouldn't that parcel of land that would cost you $1000 actually sell for less than that, since all potential buyers -not just you- would have to factor in the additional tax burden?

Do you see now?

 

[MattintheCrown]

And by "the rest of society," you mean a group of politicians who claim to represent society and to have the special right to allocate "society's" money on behalf of society, so as to satisfy various special interest groups that empower them?

No, politicians are not beneficiaries of tax money. You may not like the political process, and I can hardly blame you, but consider this: the alternative is leaving the privilege in place, and levying taxes which effectively rob the productive; and the politicians are still there, and vast privilege is available as a corrupting influence.

 

[awake]

Because the privilege of exclusive use of an area of land is necessary to our way of life. To do away with private tenure of land would be to do away with fixed improvements. Obviously, that's not beneficial to society. The solution, then, is to have the beneficiaries of the privilege compensate those who are deprived as a result of the privilege; ie, the landowner compensates the rest of society, who now must do without use of that location.

Wow... a RoyL clone just tagged in and is just as incoherent. Your system is bunk. Certain "unjust land owners" can and would become all landowners in your little tax package- politicians can not help themselves to such a low hanging fruit. And don't give me the government would never do that line...its a load of manure.

 

[erowe1]

No, politicians are not beneficiaries of tax money. You may not like the political process, and I can hardly blame you, but consider this: the alternative is leaving the privilege in place, and levying taxes which effectively rob the productive; and the politicians are still there, and vast privilege is available as a corrupting influence.

If you're saying that it would be good to replace other taxes with a land value tax, I have no problem with that. If you're saying that an LVT would be a positive good, such that we're actually better off with politicians allocating the money they get from it, rather than letting the rest of us spend it how we want, then I couldn't possibly accept that.

 

[awake]

No, politicians are not beneficiaries of tax money. You may not like the political process, and I can hardly blame you, but consider this: the alternative is leaving the privilege in place, and levying taxes which effectively rob the productive; and the politicians are still there, and vast privilege is available as a corrupting influence.

Here we go. ....politicians are the direct beneficiary of tax dollars along with the armies of departments and paid off cronies. The privilages are due to government guns and threats.

Where do they grow you guys...Your negative reps precede you.

 

[MattintheCrown]

Here we go. ....politicians are the direct beneficiary of tax dollars along with the armies of departments and paid off cronies. The privilages are due to government guns and threats.

Where do they grow you guys...Your negative reps precede you.

No, they're pretty much just not. You can pretend otherwise, but there's really nothing to gain by it. Choosing to hold a delusional world-view simply renders you incapable of solving any problems or even understanding them.

 

[MattintheCrown]

Wow... a RoyL clone just tagged in and is just as incoherent. Your system is bunk. Certain "unjust land owners" can and would become all landowners in your little tax package- politicians can not help themselves to such a low hanging fruit. And don't give me the government would never do that line...its a load of manure.

I won't give you that line, because I have no idea what you're even trying to say. Doubtless, it's ill-conceived, whatever it is.

 

[Steven Douglas]

This isn't rocket science. Taxing land will not reduce its supply, nor will it increase demand. The owner of the land will bear the full burden of the tax.

Thanks for your antiquated propaganda citations from Henry George (no authority here), rather than argue anything directly yourself. You are certainly right that it is not rocket science. It is basic economics, which you also fail to understand, as you make the same fatal mistakes as Roy relating to supply and demand, even quoting Henry George in a way that suggests he made the same truly basic mistakes as both of you.

Think about something: Why did you say "reduce" supply and "increase" demand, rather than simply "affect" either way? If LVT removes incentive from land speculators to hold onto lands, that tax most certainly gives landowners an incentive to SELL (make more land available to the market), thus affecting an INCREASE in supply (as a market correction), which in turn affects market price, with a consequent downward pressure on land values on the whole.

Thus, taxing land affects both supply and demand (but only if you're honest enough to use the actual economic definitions for each), and can indeed be passed onto others, like any other cost.

Henry George wrote that LVT "...in no way diminishes the amount of land there is to use..." What does that mean, exactly? The "amount of land there is to use" is NOT the economic supply.

So much for your appeals to Henry George.

 

[awake]

No, they're pretty much just not. You can pretend otherwise, but there's really nothing to gain by it. Choosing to hold a delusional world-view simply renders you incapable of solving any problems or even understanding them.

Explain how politicians do not benefit from taxation? Since you won't, calling me names and implying I'm stupid is all you got.

 

[flynn]

Because the privilege of exclusive use of an area of land is necessary to our way of life. To do away with private tenure of land would be to do away with fixed improvements. Obviously, that's not beneficial to society. The solution, then, is to have the beneficiaries of the privilege compensate those who are deprived as a result of the privilege; ie, the landowner compensates the rest of society, who now must do without use of that location.

Look at the track record of that where government erecting agencies to protect the lesser privilege. How are the working out?

 

[MattintheCrown]

Thanks for your antiquated propaganda citations from Henry George (no authority here), rather than argue anything directly yourself.

Why argue it directly myself? George is a better writer than I am. There's nothing antiquated about it. And you'll note he quotes Mill directly. Though he could have equally easily quoted Ricardo or even Smith.

You are certainly right that it is not rocket science. It is basic economics, which you also fail to understand, as you make the same fatal mistakes as Roy relating to supply and demand, even quoting Henry George in a way that suggests he made the same truly basic mistakes as both of you.

Think about something: Why did you say "reduce" supply and "increase" demand, rather than simply "affect" either way?

Because reducing supply or increasing demand would increase prices, and thus -if they were an effect of the tax- allow landowners to pass the tax on (the increased prices would offset the tax burden somewhat).

If LVT removes incentive from land speculators to hold onto lands, that tax most certainly gives landowners an incentive to SELL (make more land available to the market), thus affecting an INCREASE in supply (as a market correction), which in turn affects market price, with a consequent downward pressure on land values on the whole.

Initially, there'd probably be a reduction in prices, as speculators fled the market -that's true. It's actually a point George made in the article I quoted. But it's also irrelevant to the ability of landowners to pass on the tax. It's nice that you bring it up, though: it'd be a massive benefit to society, as it would relieve an excessive and utterly unnecessary burden on production.

Thus, taxing land affects both supply and demand (but only if you're honest enough to use the actual economic definitions for each), and can indeed be passed onto others, like any other cost.

Nope. It doesn't decrease supply, nor increase demand, and thus cannot be passed on. You are comprehensively wrong.

Henry George wrote that LVT "...in no way diminishes the amount of land there is to use..." What does that mean, exactly? The "amount of land there is to use" is NOT the economic supply.

So much for your appeals to Henry George.

Are you arguing that the LVT reduces the "economic supply" as defined by you? If 'yes,' how? If 'no,' you're not making any kind of relevant point.

 

[MattintheCrown]

Look at the track record of that where government erecting agencies to protect the lesser privilege. How are the working out?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[MattintheCrown]

Explain how politicians do not benefit from taxation? Since you won't, calling me names and implying I'm stupid is all you got.

You mean other than the fact that their well-being is not tied to the volume of tax revenue?

 

[erowe1]

You mean other than the fact that their well-being is not tied to the volume of tax revenue?

But their power is.

 

[MattintheCrown]

But their power is.

Not really. A Senator has pretty much the same power whether taxes are high or low.

 

[awake]

You mean other than the fact that their well-being is not tied to the volume of tax revenue?

Their "well being" is directly tied to their ability to tax as much as they can and transfer that money to people and institutions that will preserve their positions of power.

 

[MattintheCrown]

Their "well being" is directly tied to their ability to tax as much as they can and transfer that money to people and institutions that will preserve their positions of power.

Wrong. It has nothing to do with how much they tax. Their power is a result of the position as an elected official, and who or what they try to levy taxes on is dependent on the will of the constituents that put them in power.

 

[erowe1]

Not really. A Senator has pretty much the same power whether taxes are high or low.

How do you figure? Is there some way they could have taken over Iraq if their revenue had been only 2% of the GDP?

 

[MattintheCrown]

How do you figure? Is there some way they could have taken over Iraq if their revenue had been only 2% of the GDP?

Senators took over Iraq?!