Re: Relative poverty, a problem?

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:37:43 -0400, Nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The Trucker wrote:

"Nospam" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1440621.gnAuDlLMWv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Michael Scheltgen wrote:

You're way way way out of your depth here, nospam. With each new post
of your's you show everyone a brand new way you've misunderstood the
economics of land rent.


Perfect. Why don't come with a numeric example into the following
hypothesis:

Case 1: Income taxation
=====
A company in city make 100M. Pays 33M is income taxes and 33M in 1 acre
rent to a landlord. Tax revenue is 33M (company income)+1/3*33M(landowner
income)=44M

Why in the world would a business dude pay a land owner 33M when he
could set up or move his business to a place in the middle of Death
Valley and pay only $5 for the same amount of land??????

Because of the historic reasons, or the technology was not there to reach
customers and so on. But once it is possible to move, they will do it.

No, they will not. You continue to prove that you do not understand
what land rent is. I've told you dozens of times that you don't, but
I just can't get through to you. why doesn't Microsoft move to some
hick town in Montana? They could do it; they have tons of money lying
around to pay for all the transportation, set-up, etc. Why don't
they?

Blank out.

Why you had hundreds of software engineering company in US ? Because of the
historic reasons. But once it is possible to move in India they are doing
it.

No, once it is _profitable_ to move to India, they are doing it, same
as any other industry.

The answer, nospam, is that the advantages of being in the $33M location
outweigh the COSTS he would incur by putting his business in
the location that only costs him $5. i.e. it will cost him $34M in lost
business or increased costs to put the enterprise in Death Valley. That
is the part you will not allow yourself to understand.

Based on your claims, the offshoring to India or China should never happen
either.

Wrong. It happens when what is being done can be done more profitably
there, which has very little to do with land rent.

Surprize, it does. Once the "winds are favorable" they do it.

No difference here Trucker.

There is a huge difference, stupid. The software companies are going
to India and China because _LABOR_ is cheaper there, not because land
is cheaper there (because it typically isn't).

No difference, just think.

There is a big difference, and he _has_ thought. You haven't, though.
That's why you wrongly and stupidly believe that companies are moving
to India and China in search of cheaper land rather than cheaper
labor.

The government is NOT going to raise the taxes because of this silliness.

The alternative is to work with less revenue, enter in debt destroy the
infrastructure. Oooops we are doing it right now.

Wrong. The land rent is still there; just because you are too stupid
to pay the market rate for an advantageous location doesn't mean that
actual business people are.

What will happen is that some other business will now pay the same
(or slightly less) rent as was being paid by the previous user of the land
so as to use the land for something else. The previous user of the land
will supposedly now pay more for wages and other costs because of his new
location. The effects on tax revenue are negligible.

What will happen after outsourcing of manufacturing to China is that other
businesses will open the same manufacturing plants.....

Doubtful. But maybe they will open some other kind of business at the
same locations. Or maybe the economy is shifting, and other locations
will become more advantageous. Who knows? Not you, that's for sure.
And it doesn't matter if a given location is no longer so
advantageous. Another one is, and its publicly created rent can be
recovered for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it.

Oooops it didn't happen.

That's right, because it was a strawman you fabricated out of whole
cloth.

The analogy still holds.

No, of course it doesn't. Just because a location is no longer so
advnatageous for one kind of business doesn't mean it is no longer
advantageous for _any_ kind of business.

Think !!!

Right back atcha, fool.

The Government will not raise the LVT for this silliness. The new user
of the land will pay the same rent as the previous user.

Or the land will be left unused

No, stupid. When the rent is being recovered for public purposes, it
is not to anyone's advantage to leave good land unused.

and in long term this reduce the value of
the nearby land to driving the government revenue even lower.

Disproved above.

I repeat: you do not understand what land rent is.

OR the
rent of land in the countryside will rise and the rent of land in the city
will fall. There will be no difference in tax revenue.

O yeah, that is exactly what it will happen. But the land available in
countryside it is 1000 times as the land available in city. For every $1
rise in countryside, the prices in city is driven $1000 down. As a result,
the government lose huge revenue by drop into the city land value.

Then why hasn't it happened? Why is city land more and more expensive
instead of cheaper and cheaper?

Blank out.

If the
government wants to keep the revenue, it have to increase the LVT

Government has no way to recover more LVT revenue than the land rent,
and no reason to try. You are simply spouting nonsense.

and this make food prices skyrocket.

<sigh> I have already disproved that false and stupid claim at least
three times. You simply refuse to know all facts that disprove your
false beliefs.

Again, make an analogy with outsourcing. Third world population (China +
India included) is about 4billion, US population is 300M. We have a raport
of 40/3. For every 3 dollars that the third world wages rise the US wages
will drop 40.

<sigh> Then why hasn't it happened?

Blank out.

In the end, the (unregulated free market) will equalize the
wages at a 40/3 ratio.

You again prove your ignorance of economics.

If we consider today's average US wages at 40k and
the average thirdworld wages at 500 the ballance point will be somewhere
around $3255/yr. How better you live out of that money ?

That is just laughable garbage.

Please do the numbers and explain me your better understanding of LVT.

The government will not raise the LVT.

Then they lose 90% of the revenue, and have to cut ALL the programs at only
10% as before.

No, stupid. Government will only lose LVT revenue if the TOTAL land
rent declines, not if the land rent of some given parcel does. You
have never provided (and will never be able to provide) any reason to
believe that total land rent would decline under LVT. Indeed, the
historical evidence is unanimous that LVT stimulates such rapid
economic growth that total land rent soars.

Are you too a proponent of small government ? Because the
support for LVT imply an automatic support for "starve the beast".

No, you are just spewing nonsense again.

The next user of the location
will pay the market rate for such use and there will be little if any
difference in the tax revenue. Why do you not comprehend this?

Why will anyone want to pay more if they can pay less ?

<sigh> Why will anyone pay more for a Mercedes than for a Volkswagen?
Why will anyone pay more for filet mignon than for hamburger?

Think!!!

Once IT IS possible to move outside of city limits they do it.

No, stupid, they do not, as is proved by all the businesses that
locate in expensive city locations rather than going out into the
countryside. How on earth do you prevent yourself from knowing such
self-evident and indisputable facts of objective reality?

Better communication, better transportation, e-commerce, telecommuting etc.
Once it is possible, everybody will do it.

It is already possible, and they don't. You are simply too stubborn
to allow yourself to know that fact.

The Georgism it is just an obsolete stupid ideology.

<yawn>

The core belief in
Georgism is that the production it is always direct proportional with the
surface of land used.

That is -- inevitably -- the exact, diametric opposite of the core
Georgist position.

This was true until over a century ago.

No, it was never true, nor was it ever close to being true, nor will
it ever be close to being true. It is just some random garbage that
you have chosen to stuff into what you are no doubt pleased to call
your "mind," and then claim that your moral and intellectual betters
believe it when in fact you are the only one who does.

For those
times, the Georgism would been quite a progressist idea. But it is
completely obsolete now.

Content = 0.

Please try to think deeply.

Please try to think at all.

Analyze a couple of models and figure out.

I have. Now it's your turn.

Let come back to an old example I gave to royls. A day trader, stay at home
into a remote location on an apartment and is making billions on stock
trade.

So what? It's just gambling. Others are losing similar amounts, and
he likely will some day, too. He isn't depriving anyone else of
anything, nor benefiting from government spending. What difference
would it make to society if he was doing his trading from some other
country rather than the USA? And if his location in the USA makes no
difference to the USA, why would the USA tax him for working there?

You never tax him one cent.

That is of course a lie, as he would pay for the value of the land and
other natural resources he was using. And why should we tax him any
more than that? He isn't imposing any costs on society. You need to
get your head around the difference between the proceeds of productive
effort, the proceeds of chance, and the proceeds of unjust privilege.
Only the latter are appropriately taxed away.

In meantime, you tax like hell the
farmer because he use a lot of land.

No, stupid liar, I would tax the farmer _modestly_ because he is only
depriving _others_ of use of a lot of _low-rent_ land. And if he uses
a lot of land that no one else wants to use at all, and thus yields no
rent, I would not tax him one cent either.

But you are of course too attached to your false beliefs ever to
permit yourself to know that fact.

BTW, healthy organic farming have a less output per acre than intensive
heavy on chemical farming.

And...?

With LVT you are going to tax the organing farms
much more (as production percent) than unhealthy chemical farmers.

Nope. Wrong again. Organic food sells for more, stupid, and requires
less expenditure on chemicals, fertilizer, fuel, etc. I once read an
interview with an organic farmer who said, "My conventional farming
neighbors outproduce me in every way -- except net profit per acre."

You are just totally wrong in every anti-Georgist claim you make.
That is routine, expected, and inevitable.

You just
give yet another incentive to provide chemical food to the people.

Refuted. Inevitably.

It is just plain wrong. The Georgism it is dead in the water. It is just an
obsolete idea.

Except that it is provably correct on every substantive point.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security
    ... >> You seem to misapprehend the nature of LVT. ... while the revenue asymptotically approaches the ... >> land rent. ... >> noting that in advanced industrialized countries, land rent is about ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
    ... Lack of housing stock is ... Likewise not taxing land value, ... their labor for the unearned profit of landowners, ... 20% of GDP in land rent is not enough unearned income to ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Income inequality benefits the poor.
    ... The progressive income tax might take four or five times ... Which means that it only taxes recent accretions of ability to pay, ... That is what makes land rent recovery a very progressive approach. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
    ... >> their labor for the unearned profit of landowners, ... >LVT might have more instant popular appeal. ... and they turned around and _abolished_ their land tax. ... land rent is much more affordable. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Land, Labour and Capital Taxation....
    ... Lack of housing stock is ... are holding land off the market like in Irvine and Valencia, ... 20% of GDP in land rent is not enough unearned income to ... in California and it's time to build elsewhere. ...
    (sci.econ)