Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit

[erowe1]

Senators took over Iraq?!

Yes. They allocated the money that was used to do it. Money that otherwise would have been spent by free people on other much more productive things.

 

[awake]

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.

You are completely disconnected from reality. Taxes are used to sell the next tax. The more taxes politicians have the more they can buy off the people to go along with the next tax increase. Politicians or "elected officials" are simply sales men for government. The more money of ours they have the more buying off they can do.

So the absurd levels of taxation that exist today is because the people wanted it through their elected officials? Not because the elected officials simply use their office to loot the public?

 

[awake]

RoyL and Mattinthecrown,

You are arguing cryptic ideas and carrying on antagonistic quasi debates with multiple members..

You have negative reputations

You pretend you don't understand when some one clearly points out how ludicrous your positions are.

There is a term for this behavior...let me see, now what is it...hmm

 

[MattintheCrown]

Senators took over Iraq?!

The Senators were merely instruments. At the end of the day, we the people decided to go to Iraq. The power to do so came from us.

 

[MattintheCrown]

You are completely disconnected from reality. Taxes are used to sell the next tax. The more taxes politicians have the more they can buy off the people to go along with the next tax increase. Politicians or "elected officials" are simply sales men for government. The more money of ours they have the more buying off they can do.

If this were true, taxes would inexorably increase. They don't, so it isn't.

So the absurd levels of taxation that exist today is because the people wanted it through their elected officials? Not because the elected officials simply use their office to loot the public?

Correct, except for the absurd part.

 

[MattintheCrown]

RoyL and Mattinthecrown,

You are arguing cryptic ideas and carrying on antagonistic quasi debates with multiple members..

The ideas are hardly cryptic. Mainstream economists understand them, and many have explicitly advocated them.

You have negative reputations

Some people don't like to be contradicted.

You pretend you don't understand when some one clearly points out how ludicrous your positions are.

Example?

 

[erowe1]

The Senators were merely instruments. At the end of the day, we the people decided to go to Iraq. The power to do so came from us.

No we didn't. The power to do so was stolen from us by force. We wouldn't have funded it voluntarily.

 

[MattintheCrown]

No we didn't. The power to do so was stolen from us by force. We wouldn't have funded it voluntarily.

To the extent that's true (I'll agree it's a half-truth), politicians were merely the means; tools. I'll suggest your understanding of society in general, and government in particular, puts the cart before the horse. Like many who deem government to be bad, you fail to recognize that it is simply a means of achieving an end, and that, in general, democratic governments have enabled much better results for the common man than available alternatives.

The failure of our modern societies to structure our laws in such a way as to afford citizens equal rights leads to an imbalance of power, which in turn allows the privileged to use the government as a tool of coercion. Chief among these failures is the state giving away the privilege of owning land, without compensation. The resulting imbalance of wealth and power makes tragedies like Iraq an inevitability; it also begs for "solutions" to the problems it causes that will inevitably cause additional problems -the ultimate example being communism.

 

[awake]

To the extent that's true (I'll agree it's a half-truth), politicians were merely the means; tools. I'll suggest your understanding of society in general, and government in particular, puts the cart before the horse. Like many who deem government to be bad, you fail to recognize that it is simply a means of achieving an end, and that, in general, democratic governments have enabled much better results for the common man than available alternatives.

The failure of our modern societies to structure our laws in such a way as to afford citizens equal rights leads to an imbalance of power, which in turn allows the privileged to use the government as a tool of coercion. Chief among these failures is the state giving away the privilege of owning land, without compensation. The resulting imbalance of wealth and power makes tragedies like Iraq an inevitability; it also begs for "solutions" to the problems it causes that will inevitably cause additional problems -the ultimate example being communism.

Democracy should be better recognized as a degeneration, not an improvement for mankind. The 20th century under democracy has been the bloodiest century in all mans history. It allows any immoral criminal the ability to enter government and systematically covet and confiscate the property of all other people. It is the current main driver of de-civilization through capital redistribution from producers (goods) to non producers (bads); destroying the former and fostering the latter.

You imply that you fear communism, but democracy is a soft form of it and will eventually bring about socialism if left to its design.

 

[Steven Douglas]

The price of land is still set by supply and demand.

No, it is set exclusively by demand, as supply is fixed. This is crucial.

See? Roy is either a) off in pseudo-economics land, substituting non-economic definitions in place of economic terms, or b) speaking only of the state as the seller (of land rent levies). Either way, the economic supply in the current land market is anything but fixed.

Which is it? As it turns out, Roy is a) substituting non-economic definitions in place of economic terms. To wit:

No. Supply is the total amount available to the market. It is NOT the market inventory of parcels whose owners are actively trying to sell. All the land people are using or could be using is part of the supply.

See? A total abandonment/ignorance of the economics definition of supply. Supply is NEITHER of Roy's FALSE CHOICES. It is not "the total amount available to the market". That is simplistic, ill-defined, and flat out wrong, because he omits the REQUIRED variables of price and time. Neither is it Roy's other pseudo-economic false choice strawman: "...the market inventory of parcels whose owners are actively trying to sell."

Supply is "the quantity (area in the case of land) a SELLER is able and willing to sell, at a given price, within a given period of time."

Not all owners are sellers, because while they may be ABLE to sell, many are not WILLING to sell (at a given price, or within a given period of time), which means NONE of that can be included in supply (at that price, within that given period of time). That's using the actual economics definition of supply, not Roy's conveniently simplistic pseudo-economics definition.

Roy's talking nothing but obfuscating gibberish. Pseudo-economics.

 

[MattintheCrown]

Democracy should be better recognized as a degeneration, not an improvement for mankind.

History proves that characterization false.

The 20th century under democracy has been the bloodiest century in all mans history.

Because it's been the most prosperous. The advances that it enabled also allowed advances in killing.

It allows any immoral criminal the ability to enter government and systematically covet and confiscate the property of all other people. It is the current main driver of de-civilization through capital redistribution from producers (goods) to non producers (bads); destroying the former and fostering the latter.

You imply that you fear communism, but democracy is a soft form of it and will eventually bring about socialism if left to its design.

It will if the difference between privileges and rights is not recognized. The question is: are you willing to recognize the difference?

 

[MattintheCrown]

See? Roy is either a) off in pseudo-economics land, substituting non-economic definitions in place of economic terms, or b) speaking only of the state as the seller (of land rent levies). Either way, the economic supply in the current land market is anything but fixed.

Which is it? As it turns out, Roy is a) substituting non-economic definitions in place of economic terms. To wit:



See? A total abandonment/ignorance of the economics definition of supply. Supply is NEITHER of Roy's FALSE CHOICES. It is not "the total amount available to the market". That is simplistic, ill-defined, and flat out wrong, because he omits the REQUIRED variables of price and time. Neither is it Roy's other pseudo-economic false choice strawman: "...the market inventory of parcels whose owners are actively trying to sell."

You forgot to explain how a tax on land value could or would decrease supply, as you define it.

Until you do so, you are talking nonsense.

 

[awake]

History proves that characterization false.


Because it's been the most prosperous. The advances that it enabled also allowed advances in killing.


It will if the difference between privileges and rights is not recognized. The question is: are you willing to recognize the difference?

Oh please! Prosperity killed 200 million people last century and not individuals under the auspices of democracy using government...? And as if there are no democratically elected people acting criminal in office...Your eyes a sewn shut.

 

[MattintheCrown]

Oh please! Prosperity killed 200 million people last century and not individuals under the auspices of democracy using government...?

Let me put it this way: in the dark ages, there was no ability to kill that many people, and there were hardly that many people available to kill.

And as if there are no democratically elected people acting criminal in office...Your eyes a sewn shut.

There's just no point here. There's people who act criminally in all stations in life.

 

[awake]

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.

 

[Steven Douglas]

You forgot to explain how a tax on land value could or would decrease supply, as you define it.

Until you do so, you are talking nonsense.

The goalpost you moved is meaningless. The greater the tax, the greater the supply of that which is taxed, as a direct consequence of avoidance thereof. Hence, the supply of land, which is not fixed or inelastic, would tend to increase in direct proportion to any tax thereon.

You failed/forgot to explain how that was relevant, making the nonsense talk yours alone.

And that brings us to the Land Use Squeeze, and one of the reasons EcoWarriers(sic) and leftist greens are so enamored and supportive of LVT - because it artificially manipulates and herds whole societies into vertical monstrosities (thus countering the dreaded "urban sprawl"). Those who depend on land but want to avoid high taxes will use less land, will take less and build vertically instead, so that they can capture rents on all the capital improvements. Meanwhile, the state can respond to lost revenues from diminishing land values in a number of ways, two of which are, a) a portion of the increased rental values of the vertical horrors constructed can be imputed as land value increases, and b) zoning and usage restrictions can be employed, withholding lands from specific markets, or from all markets altogether, which adds an addition artificial scarcity to the market supply, putting upward pressure on land values.

 

[MattintheCrown]

The goalpost you moved is meaningless.

You're the one attempting to shift the goalposts. The context of the discussion is about the landowners' ability to shift the burden of taxation onto others. They can't, regardless of your objections, so your "point" is meaningless. Your claim that George, Roy, myself, and others who understand economics have the definition of land wrong is meaningless, unless the definition you provide makes a meaningful distinction regarding the relevant point. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't; regardless of whether we accept your definition or Roy's, the fact remains that the LVT cannot be passed on to tenants.

The greater the tax, the greater the supply of that which is taxed, as a direct consequence of avoidance thereof.

This is literal nonsense. This neither applies to land, nor anything else. No matter how much we choose to tax land, it will not make more land come into existence.

Hence, the supply of land, which is not fixed or inelastic, would tend to increase in direct proportion to any tax thereon.

Nope. There's an obvious limit to the supply of land, however you choose to define it: there can never be more land in supply than the universe makes available, regardless of taxation.

Truly, this is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever encountered. If you're making claims to be an honest agent, you should at least explicitly admit this error.

You failed/forgot to explain how that was relevant, making the nonsense talk yours alone.

That's just false. The context is very simple indeed. Landowners cannot pass the LVT on to tenants. That's the relevance. It's understandable that you'd prefer to avoid the fact, but that's the fact. Your claim is that we all have the economic definition of supply wrong, and our arguments are thus wrong; the problem is, your definition of supply doesn't change the relationship. This is a catastrophic failure on your part.

And that brings us to the Land Use Squeeze, and one of the reasons EcoWarriers(sic) and leftist greens are so enamored and supportive of LVT - because it artificially manipulates and herds whole societies into vertical monstrosities (thus countering the dreaded "urban sprawl").

Except it doesn't. There's no incentive to build vertically under the LVT.

Those who depend on land

IE, everyone. Whether those who wish to use land pay a landowner or the government is irrelevant; the point is, one must pay to use land that is super-marginal.

but want to avoid high taxes will use less land, will take less and build vertically instead, so that they can capture rents on all the capital improvements.

Which, of course, they do already. How do you figure, when you've already admitted that more land would become available to those who wished to use it, that the desire to build vertically would increase? This I must hear. It's obvious you're talking garbage when you argue mutually exclusive points. You claimed that the LVT would compel speculators to sell land, yet here you argue that the LVT would compel individuals to build vertically! Which is it?! Would the LVT make land more or less available for use?

Allow me to answer that for you: it would allow more efficient use of land. Sometimes that would mean skyscrapers, sometimes that would mean less intensive uses than are currently resorted to. The point would be that any use, be it concentrated or otherwise, would tend to be more efficient than current usage. The result: better allocation of resources: more prosperity. Or to put it another way, we'd all be richer for less work.

Meanwhile, the state can respond to lost revenues from diminishing land values in a number of ways, two of which are, a) a portion of the increased rental values of the vertical horrors constructed can be imputed as land value increases, and b) zoning and usage restrictions can be employed, withholding lands from specific markets, or from all markets altogether, which adds an addition artificial scarcity to the market supply, putting upward pressure on land values.

Lost revenues as compared to what? The imposition of the LVT would reduce land values, but this would take place as the tax was imposed, or more likely, before: as it became clear the tax was going to be imposed, land values would be reduced accordingly. The revenues would increase with increased production and population, just as they should with a reasonable tax base. Land value is a nearly perfect tax base because its extent is commensurate with the society that creates it. It automatically sets reasonable limits.


You just can't get anything right regarding LVT.

 

[Steven Douglas]

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

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

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.

The second proof - the falsification of that bunk claim that land rents cannot be passed along or shifted to tenants: It is possible for a landlord to make all LVT payments without any other source of income besides rents from his tenants. 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? 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!

No matter how much we choose to tax land, it will not make more land come into existence.

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. The entire amount of land in existence is not "the supply". They are not the same thing, remember?

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". 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).

Hence, the supply of land, which is not fixed or inelastic, would tend to increase in direct proportion to any tax thereon.

There's an obvious limit to the supply of land, however you choose to define it: there can never be more land in supply than the universe makes available, regardless of taxation.

You're off on a wild tangent now. I say "supply increases", and you say, "No sir! Not forever it doesn't! Not infinitely! Not more than the universe makes available!"

Let me clear this up so that you can untangle your brain and actually digest it.

If an LVT of $ONE ZILLLION-GAZILLLION was levied (Land Rents times infinity), 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. And remember (VERY IMPORTANT, NEVER FORGET) that supply is a function of price, as well as quantity and time. 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?

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

Now you're being plain obtuse. This is a catastrophic failure on your part. I can get 1,000 citations to support that claim -- right from LVT proponents who make that very claim as a reason in favor of the tax! Here's just one from a single lazy Google search that you could have performed yourself (if you were interested in knowing anything about LVT, that is):

[Recent LVT Endorsements]
Incentive Taxation
Center for the Study of Economics
Land Value Taxation in Urban and Smart Growth
Policy Discussion: Recent Developments From 1996-2004

Another effective tax incentive that can be used to encourage historic rehabilitation is the splitrate
property tax, also known as the land-value or two-rate tax. The split-rate property tax takes
the value of a piece of property and divides it into two parts-the value of the land and the value of
any buildings or improvements on the land. The value of the land is taxed at a higher rate,
whereas the value of the building and improvements is taxed at a lower rate. This scheme
creates an incentive for property owners to rehabilitate and maintain their property. It also
promotes vertical, rather than horizontal, development. Moreover, this tax system benefits all
properties, not just historic ones.

Harrisburg has seen increased vertical—as opposed to horizontal—development that the city attributes in part to its split-rate tax.

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

You claimed that the LVT would compel speculators to sell land, yet here you argue that the LVT would compel individuals to build vertically! Which is it?!

You really are that daft, aren't you? They were not mutually exclusive propositions. In fact, many of the same speculators who would be selling land would be the same ones condensing their holdings so that they can build vertically. Was that really that hard for you to grasp? Did you really, honestly see that as an either/or proposition?

I guess you can't get anything right with LVT, Matt. That's the trouble with being a blind-faith supporter of something you obviously don't fully understand.

 

[idiom]

Hang on a moment. If we are talking about land being special because it has a fixed physical supply (as opposed to economic supply) then everything else in fixed physical supply is subject to the same arguments.

Like the rare elements in a cell phone. Cell phone users are holding them hostage and denying their use to anyone else.

Or shall we go simpler with Copper. The LVT arguments get pretty quickly to the idea that we should be paying rent to the 'community' for all the copper one is using.

This is all beside the point that if you forced someone to pay vast sums of money for land, they will just abandon the land and move elsewhere.

The only thing LVT does is punish resource utilisation. This will inevitably lead to a bubble economy that is without industries that use resources heavily. See Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Alternatively people will simply game the system. Wither they will sell land back and forth for $1 and game the value or they will game exemptions and put a flor of apartments at the base or above every business so that the land gains residence exemption.

The losers are anything creating real wealth, like mines or heavy industry. They will pack up and leave.

 

[idiom]

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.

Well shall we examine long standing examples of LVT and where the money ends up?

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.