Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 01/05/05
- Next message: Lantern: "Riggs Bank Update"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: "Why the Georgist movement has not succeeded:" - by Warren Samuels"
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Reply: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:14:15 GMT
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:51:42 GMT, Igor <jjweatherby@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:43:22 GMT, Igor <jjweatherby@houston.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> Right. The inefficient ones. That is a _benefit_ of LVT, just as it
>> is a _benefit_ of the other operations of a free market.
>
>It is obvious you do not know what efficent means. These are firms who
>are profit maximizing. I am speaking of.
You are now equivocating. Thanks for snipping the context, so readers
can't verify that fact for themselves.
>>>The increase tax leads to lower profits.
>>
>> It's not an increased tax. It _replaces_ other taxes. For any firm
>> that is not just relying on idle rent collection for its after-tax
>> profits, those profits will be _larger_ with LVT.
>
>No one knows that. It depends on the size of tax.
No, it doesn't, assuming the change is revenue neutral.
>>>For competitive firms
>>>and monopolisticly competitive firms in the long run profits are zero.
>>
>> ??? ROTFL!!! Man, you really are just bag-o-hammers stupid, aren't
>> you?
>
>No. I know something about economics and economic profit. It is basic
>theory. Read something about economic theory.
Again, you are equivocating. The long-run profits that entrepreneurs
care about are not "economic profits."
>>>A tax would cause negative profits and people to go out of business.
>>
>> Yes, under a land rent recovery system the inefficient and
>> unproductive rent-seeking people would go out of business and be
>> replaced by more productive and efficient entrepreneurial people.
>> That is a _good_ thing.
>
>No replacement here.
Flat wrong, as usual.
>If the land goes out it is likely to lay fallow
>because the tax is too high to make a profit.
As I have already _proved_ to you, that is _impossible_. This is a
fact of economics that has been known for nearly 200 years.
>It is possible a different
>industry may use the land but not the same industry that was using the
>land if the market structure was perfectly competitive or
>monopolisiticaly competitive.
Which it never is.
>I am talking about economic profits.
Correction: you are talking nonsense.
>The land tax if added on to current taxes
No one is suggesting that; but thanks for proving your dishonesty once
again.
>or if it is more than profit taxes
>will cause ECONOMIC profits to be less than zero.
You are of course just babbling nonsense at this point.
>That means people exit
>the industry. It does not mean that another industry that is making
>profits may not open shop on the land but it does mean a decrease in
>firms in the INDUSTRY.
Which in this case would be more efficient.
>The firms leaving were not inefficent. They would
>be profit maximizing firms who could not make as much profit as the next
>best alternative, ie. another business or working for someone else.
IOW, they _were_ inefficient.
>Roy needs to learn economic theory before he tries to debate economics.
ROTFL!!
>>>Just because a piece of land
>>>is there and it is not used for speculation does not mean someone will
>>>produce on it if the tax is high enough to force negative long run profits.
>>
>> A tax on land rent cannot, repeat _cannot_ be high enough to force
>> negative long-term profits.
>
>Wrong.
It is fact. No prospect of profit -> no land rent -> no tax.
You are destroyed.
>Any landowner/capitialist will see a decrease in profits
Flat false. He will only see a decrease in after-tax profits if his
current land rent capture is greater than his current tax liabilities.
>there is
>no guarantee he was making ECONOMIC profit prior to the tax
Bingo. Which proves you are just spouting more irrelevant trash.
>nor any
>guarantee he will make ECONOMIC profit after the tax.
Of course. There are never any guarantees.
>If the market
>structure is competitive, firms are making 0 ECONOMIC profit in the Long
>run any tax on profits or land will force them out of business.
?? ROTFL!! How did you get to be so stupid?
>You seem to think there is always a nasty landowner with a big wort on
>his nose that exploits the labor and capitalist.
The warts are only on your brain.
>In most situations the
>capitalist and landowner is one.
Irrelevant.
Because you have never learned any economics (however many degrees you
may claim to have), you do not understand that economics considers
people in the distinct economic roles they play, not as actual
individuals who may do lots of different things.
>> All rents just decline to the point where
>> someone will use the land. And they won't use it if they think their
>> long-term profits will be anything but positive.
>
>No some land will have 0 rent before the tax and NO BUSINESS WILL BE PUT
>UPON THE LAND.
Right. Submarginal land. Which, because it yields 0 rent, pays 0
tax. But that's not the land we were talking about, is it, idiot boy?
>You have to tax only the lands that have rents. X% of the
>unimproved value does not do this.
Yes, actually, it does.
>You have to vary the percentage to achieve it.
Wrong. You have made this claim numerous times, and have never yet
been able to support it with _any_ kind of fact or logic.
>> You see, the problem here, Igor, is that you haven't yet understood
>> that you are stupid, ignorant, dishonest garbage. Once you come to
>> that realization, there is a chance we can help you. At least with
>> the ignorant and dishonest parts.
>
>Throwing insults does not make you right. Fine if you are truely correct
>about this then write an article submit it to ANY REFERRED ECONOMICS
>JOURNAL.
?? No refereed journal is going to publish facts of economics that
have been known (to everyone but you) for nearly 200 years.
>If they publish it I will concede. Good luck. You are going to
>need it. If you do not get outright rejection, highly likely, you are
>going to have to a ton of research on the revise/resubmit portion.
<sigh> Can anyone tell me why I waste my time with this idiot?
-- Roy L
- Next message: Lantern: "Riggs Bank Update"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: "Why the Georgist movement has not succeeded:" - by Warren Samuels"
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Reply: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
