Re: better tax code: no income tax, head tax (&| ppty t)

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:39:05 -0800 (PST), Lysander
<lysander@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 27, 1:42=A0am, "J.H.Boersema" <jo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ownership (property tax) can be taxed, as that wouldn't impede
trade.

It can impede trade in land markets, however the impediment is less
than other markets given the tax burden is relieved by selling. You
need very restrictive assumptions that are unlikely to hold to get an
efficient land tax.

Wrong. The "restrictive assumptions" are true by definition.

The data on elasticity of labor supply seems to
indicate payroll are as likely to be as close to efficient as land
taxes.

Wrong. As I have already proved to you, none of the data you claim
show elasticity of land supply in fact show any such thing.

Labor supply is very inelastic like land supply is.

Wrong. The supply of land is fixed. The supply of labor is not.

Fairness is
a completely different argument. The Georgist can not get over the
fairness argument and continually argue the same misunderstanding
about supply and a religious belief that the restrictive parameters
hold. Do not let them fool you. To them it is all about which tax is
the most fair. Few of them actually understand efficiency or what
supply means.

ROTFL!!

You're the one who proved he does not know what either price or supply
mean, claiming that if price was low, land would not be supplied.
Have you figured out yet why that claim was and is utter nonsense?

=A0In a more equally set up economy the need for progressive
taxation diminishes,

Is there ever a need for progressive taxes?

There is when the tax base is income, because there are substantial
numbers of people who can't afford to pay any significant tax on their
incomes.

That being said I support the ability to pay principles. Those with
the highest ability to pay should pay the most.

Indeed they should. But of course, you define ability to pay as
income, not as what by definition it really is: assets.

This does not mean tax
rates have to be progressive. A flat tax still means those with higher
incomes pay more taxes just that everyone pays the same percentage.

Why should those with higher _incomes_ pay more tax, especially higher
_earned_ incomes? Why define progressivity according to income rather
than assets? Shouldn't those who get more from society through their
ownership of rent collection privileges pay more tax, rather than
those who contribute more to society by their productive efforts?

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?
    ... >>People who dont pay property taxes have no land, ... >>taxes that pay for the gubbment, have land, problem solved. ... tax money. ... In my old town the assessments were ILLEGALLY calculated, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: OT Article: Another year, another wage loss
    ... because it takes two incomes to make it. ... The changes in the tax code and regulatory laws and workplace ... an honest days work and get an honest days pay is not class "envy". ... I trust them to be more efficient than the government. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Wal-Mart and Wages?
    ... >>land to pay, you must build a society and survival based on accepting ... > There is no doubt I can find his land. ... But his brother that is the tax man, and nephew that is the city marshall ... not, you couldn't get the people in charge to DO THIER JOB, why can't you ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Sleeping in Light
    ... It wouldn't assume equal incomes any more than a grocery store ... then it logically follows that tax policy MUST consider ability to pay, ... >> Thats why you treat people as equals in matters of in front of the law, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • 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)