Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
From: The Trucker (mikcob_at_verizon.net)
Date: 01/07/05
- Next message: The Trucker: "Re: Question about President's Social Security plan"
- Previous message: The Trucker: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: anon: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Reply: anon: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Reply: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:39:38 -0800
Igor 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.
The word "profit" is one of those words that has an inadequate economic
definition. It is an accounting word only in that it refers to income
in excess of cost no matter the source of the income or the source of
the costs. The correct term in economics for that which we would
want to maximize would be "interest" as properly defined as the return
to _real_ capital. All the other "profit" is from rent.
>>
>>>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.
Nope. If the tax/rent is based on market value of land only then there
is no adverse effect on _real_ capital or wages. So long as the
"firm" is "profitable" without collecting any rent at all then there
would be no effect at all on "profits".
>>
>>>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.
Any economics that uses the word "profit" is a piece of crap.
>>
>>>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. If the land goes out it is likely to lay fallow
> because the tax is too high to make a profit.
You REALLY need to understand the word "profit" so you can tell us
exactly what it means because if my "profit" depends upon land
rent, then I am a rentier. Or perhaps it is the concept of "free
market" that eludes you. Perhaps you fail to comprehend that ALL
FIRMS must pay the same exact percentage of land value as a rent or
a tax. In which case, the folks that are most efficient in their
use of capital will prevail.
> 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
That is precisely the point.
> monopolisiticaly competitive.
Yet another Smokey.
> I am talking about economic profits. The
> land tax if added on to current taxes or if it is more than profit taxes
> will cause ECONOMIC profits to be less than zero.
How many times does Igor need to be advised that LVT is a tax SHIFT and
not an additional tax? And how much will it take to get Igor to
use words that have clear meaning? _Profit_ is not a word that has
any _economic_ meaning. Returns are: wages, interest, and rent. Pick
one.
> 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.
Why would these exiting firms not be replaced?
> 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.
Good. That is what is meant to happen.
> Roy needs to learn economic theory before he tries to debate economics.
You need to unlearn the crap that the current batch of prancing pigs
wants to use as terminology.
> I will not comment on his political ideas, which seem to motivate his
> arguments, but remember it is politics talking here not real analysis.
> Anyone with real analylitical skills knows it is not that simple.
Just the opposite, Igor. It takes a whole lot of smoke and bubbles
to support current neo-economic falsehood. But you can invent all
sorts of new words and try to destroy the old ones, but some of us
did not undergo the brain transplant that is essential to current
dogma. Others were able to resist it.
>>>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. Any landowner/capitalist will see a decrease in profits there is
> no guarantee he was making ECONOMIC profit prior to the tax nor any
> guarantee he will make ECONOMIC profit after the tax. 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.
Igor wins this one because "profits" can be from land rent exclusively
and still be "profits". The rent may also be used to support much
inefficiency. In the latter case, the enterprise will go belly up.
> You seem to think there is always a nasty landowner with a big wort on
> his nose that exploits the labor and capitalist. In most situations the
> capitalist and landowner is one. The days of feudalism and later
> sharecropping George was at least somewhat refering to are long gone.
In economics, Igor, we separate out the owner of land, the owner of
capital, and the owner (Roy don't like it but I use it anyway) of
labor (I suppose you could use the word "provider" but I fail to
see the significance). We do this even in one man operations that
_own_ land.
>> 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.
This is good.
> You have to tax only the lands that have rents. X% of the
> unimproved value does not do this.
50% of zero is still zero, while 50% of $3000 = $1500
> You have to vary the percentage to
> achieve it.
See above.
> Rent is relative to other grades of lands NOT ABSOLUTE.
That is all part of _market value_
>> 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. If they publish it I will concede.
Why would they publish it, Igor? They are paid to lie.
> 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.
I would not waste 5 min. on "submitting" anything to some outfit
like Cato Institute or any other supposed "economics authority".
The following URL is in the process of being updated and the
exact verbage may vary from the text I insert here:
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/Hijacked.php ---------------------------
What most aristocratic apologists of the current economics "profession" will
not confront is that economics is a religious proposition. This does not
infer that people must be believers in a supreme being or an after life so
as to be aware or to be conversant or appreciative of (or disdainful of)
economic principles. But proper economics is normative and therefore does
require a definition of "good". And any definition of "good" is a religious
position. It is not even possible to prove there is any such thing as
"good". Even if one makes the presumption that the existence and ascent of
man as a species is "good" then we are still left with the definition of
"ascent". Is "good" that which pleases God, or is "good" that which makes
life on earth better for man? Though not an endorsement of Ayn Rand, the
following is most illuminating in this context:
'If a person or group or culture or creed wishes to believe that an
afterlife will offer eternal rewards that are proportional to one's Earthly
poverty, sickness, disfigurement, ignorance, and brevity of life, then a
system of rules promoting Earthly prosperity, health, and longevity would
be inappropriate. If, however, one seeks rules that are likely to optimize
or maximize "life on Earth," these rules must at least be consistent with,
or respect, the natures of "life" and "Earth."' --- Ayn Rand
In our treatment of economics we will assume that pleasing God, while it may
be a fine thing to do, is not the province of economics or government. We
will maintain that the ascent of the species as addressed by economics will
be seen as the easing of man's earthly burdens and the improvement in man's
comfort while living in this universe. We believe in man as a species and
that man can rise above himself and continue to create a better world. And
real economics is a tool to be used in giving man the relief from drudgery
and discomfort that will allow such fulfillment. Even as men may seek to
better understand God and to seek ways to better please God, real economics
can provide more time for this and more time to address particular beliefs
concerning an afterlife. Without this definition of "good" or some other
definition of "good" a claim that "the economy is good" is meaningless
rhetoric. We must have some idea as to what is to be achieved before we can
possibly adopt any economic rules to get there or any tools with which
progress or the lack thereof can be measured. Most certainly "the economy"
in the advanced civilization of today is "good" for somebody or some sector
of the civilization or we would not hear the talking heads proclaiming this
"goodness" over and over again. Someone or some group seems to be going to
great lengths to assure us that the economy is "good" whether it is or not.
And that group of course is the group currently in power, i.e. the current
aristocracy. This is not a new invention.
It is important to understand that this undefined nature of "good" is a key
element in the "whole cloth" of current politics and economics. When there
is no agreement about "good" then there can be no actual goals and as such
the politicians and the priests can claim whatever might serve their
aristocratic purposes. Using improper (but well marketed and accepted)
metrics, it is possible to promote rules of economic control which are
merely in the best interest of the established order. Rules which are anti
democratic and anti social and which unduly burden the common people to
prevent their Ascension. And it is this missing definition of "good" that
is the root of the current hypocrisy. Without such a definition it is
impossible to have any discourse or progress in the field of politics or
economics. At the same time it is essential to agree on terminology such
that actual information can be exchanged. For without precise meanings for
words, the aristocrat will forever mislead. In this regard we would seek to
reinstate a proper economics terminology that has been purposefully
destroyed. The destruction of the terminology and the adoption of metrics
that fail to reflect the common good are the major building blocks of our
current aristocracy allowing such inanities as "We have a labor shortage",
or "We need more immigration from Mexico to fill those jobs that Americans
do not want to do". And the greatest hoax of all, the infamous "We need tax
cuts for the rich so they can provide jobs". By seeing the duplicity,
misdirection, and outright falsehood inherent in these inanities the ever
present prostitution of the economic profession itself is revealed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson. http://GreaterVoice.org
- Next message: The Trucker: "Re: Question about President's Social Security plan"
- Previous message: The Trucker: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Next in thread: anon: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Reply: anon: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Reply: Igor: "Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
