Re: Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:25:27 GMT

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:58:42 -0500, "smithaa02" <asdf@asdf.net> wrote:

>Mark Monson <m_monson@ztech.com> wrote in message
>news:KDxKc.3944$f_6.1107@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> The universe has plenty of space and is well stocked with all the raw
>materials we
>> desire. Only good locations are scarce.
>
>Nonsense. The issue of 'location' is an attempt by certain land critics
>(not genuine ones) to obfuscate the land issue, by limiting their land tax
>to land that doesn't change in location, while land that does change in
>location is thus not taxed (and not considered land for tax and social
>purposes).

<sigh> No, lying moron. I have already corrected you on this point a
number of times. You simply ignore the facts I identify for you.

A natural resource that changes location without human assistance
(like a fish in the ocean) is still "land" in the economic sense, but
a natural resource whose location and/or form is changed to a more
useful one by human effort (like a fish in a supermarket) is no longer
land but a product. Your refusal to know such facts marks you as
deliberately ignorant.

>These LVT advocates like taxes on farmland, but not on the food
>taken from the farmland.

Maybe because the food is not a natural resource, but the land is, and
taxing the food will reduce the amount of food available, but taxing
the land won't reduce the amount of land available (and will indeed
typically increase it)?

>They like taxes on forest land, but not on the
>lumber taken from the forest.

Land is land, lumber is a product, and you are a moron. And FYI,
advocates of land taxation _do_ advocate once-and-for-all taxation of
the value of any extracted resource (called a "severance" tax), but
not the value of the product thus created. The tax on a ton of iron
ore taken out of a mine would thus not depend on whether the ore was
used to make rebar or Swiss watches. The tax on a tree taken from a
forest would not depend on whether it was used to make plywood or
violins.

>LVT'ers like taxes on mineral vein, but not
>once that mineral is transported away from that site and transformed by
>labor into more usefull purposes.

False. LVTers like taxes on both possession of the mineral vein and
on the value of any mineral extracted. Just not on the value of the
product.

>All of which is totally inconsistent.

Inconsistent with the false beliefs of morons. Right.

>One of many examples to prove your 'infinite resources' but finite location
>theory of land value is collapsing fish stocks.

Some resources are inherently consumed by use (e.g., iron ore), others
are not (e.g., residential land), and still others -- mainly life
forms and water flows -- have a sustainable _rate_ of use. All can be
taxed according to the value of what is _used_, without taxing the
value of what is thereby _produced_.

-- Roy L

Relevant Pages