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

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:24:39 -0800 (PST), Lysander
<lysander@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 28, 3:37 am, ro...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:39:05 -0800 (PST), Lysander

<lysan...@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.

Roy refuses to understand the definition of supply. Instead he spouts
religious dogma that the evidence is apparent for anyone who believes.
I believe this is what supply is therefore it is according to Roy. The
proof is obvious to all that believe.

Stupid nonsense lacking any factual or logical content.

As usual.

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.

Quite the contrary. There are few studies of the elasticity of land
raw land supply. The few that exist suggest it is not 0.

Wrong.

Labor supply is very inelastic like land supply is.

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

Even if Roy was right about land and he is not there is never a fixed
supply of anything,

The supply of original works of dead artists is fixed, as is the
supply of land. You are simply wrong, and refuse to know all facts
that prove you wrong.

he is still being awfully dense here. If the
elasticity of supply of raw land is 0 and the elasticity of supply of
labor is .00001 then they are pretty close.

Yes, and if the queen had balls she'd be king.

The labor supply curve is
very close to perfectly inelastic.

No, of course it isn't. Don't be so stupid.

When one understands that a supply
curve is the pairing of prices and the corresponding amount that
PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO SELL AT THAT PRICE,

People are willing to sell the same amount of land at whatever the
price is, because that is how price is defined: what a thing sells
for.

it is obvious the amount of
land in existence has nothing to do with whether or not the supply
curve is perfectly inelastic.

Yes, it does, if you are willing to know the definition of price: what
a thing sells for. You are not willing to know that definition, so
you are permanently ignorant of economics.

Just because the land exist does not
mean I will sell it at the market price or any other price for that
matter.

You will sell it at whatever the price is, because that is how price
is defined. And you will not sell any more than that, because you
don't have and can't produce any more. That is why the supply of land
is fixed by definition.

We buy land because it has value.

Wrong. We buy it because its utility to us is greater than its price.

Strike One.

Different land has different values due to the characteristics of the land.

Wrong. It's mostly due to the characteristics of the surrounding
community.

Strike Two.

We only sell
when the market price exceeds the value we place on the land.

Wrong. "We" do not place value on land. Only the market can
determine value. We sell when the price is greater than the land's
utility to us.

That's Strike Three, sunshine. You're out.

Since
different land has different value, the market price effects how much
land is sold.

No, it doesn't, because different land has different prices to go
along with its different values, and whatever the price for a given
parcel is, the land sells for it.

_GET_IT_??

Note: This assumes perfect competition in the land market.

There is no competition in the land market, because every land parcel
is unique, just as every original artwork is unique. As with every
monopoly, there are degrees of substitutability; but there is no
genuine competition as there is in a commodity market where the units
are functionally indistinguishable. That is why land is a canonical
example of monopoly, a fact that Liesander always refuses to know.

Roy is so
dense to argue that the land market is a monopoly market while, his
reasoning for a monopoly actually points to oligopoly.

Wrong again, as usual. See above.

When we are not in perfect competition there is NO SUPPLY CURVE!

<sigh> So there is no supply curve for patented products?? The
amount supplied will not be related to price?

Roy can not have it
both ways in that land is a monopoly market but it has perfectly
inelastic supply so therefore a tax is efficient.

Wrong again. Like the supply of land, the supply of original works of
dead artists is perfectly inelastic. The market for them is a
monopoly market, like the land market. Any introductory economics
textbook could inform your ignorance of this subject, if you were
willing to be informed.

There are no supply curves in monopoly and no elasticity of supply.

The manufacturers of patented products will produce more of them if
the price is higher. Therefore, the elasticity of supply is positive.
But no one will ever produce any land, just as they will never produce
any more Rembrandts or Picassos, no matter how high the price.
Therefore, the elasticity of their supply is zero.

A tax that does not
change decisions in monopoly leaves the market AT THE SAME INEFFICIENT
SOLUTION THAT PREVAILED BEFORE THE TAX

Only given your false-by-definition assumption that things can have a
price they don't trade for.

just as tax that does not
change decisions leaves the perfectly competitive market at the same
efficient solution that prevailed before the tax.

You permanently refuse to know the fact that the "efficient solution"
is not necessarily a desirable outcome.

Suppose all the land is owned by a man whose fondest wish is to see
everyone else starve to death. The "efficient solution" in such a
land market is also a "final solution."

Roy can not understand that taxes that would impose a deadweight loss
in competition CAN lead us to efficiency in Monopoly.

You assume competition in the land market. That assumption is false.

Roy does not
understand that if as he argues land is allocated inefficiently before
the tax then you DO WANT to change incentives.

I do indeed.

In competition having more land sold on the market is inefficient.

But land is a canonical example of monopoly, not competition.

Under monopoly it leads us closer to efficiency.

Right.

Yet Roy wants to stick an old insane argument
that every piece of land in existence is sold regardless of the price,
a perfectly inelastic supply curves says that people will sell the
same amount, in Roy's argument all that is in existence, regardless of
the price.

That is correct, because it only _HAS_ a price if it sells.

That means you will sell your land if the price is 0 or if
the price is $1 million the price will not affect your willingness to
sell.

Correct: you have merely decided to be permanently ignorant of the
fact that $0 being the price means you have already sold it for that
amount, _BY_DEFINITION_.

He wants to argue that price does not affect the amount of land
sold then turn around and say that people will not sell below the
market price.

<sigh> A hand of contract bridge consists of 13 tricks. Nothing can
change that sum. Any bid below the highest bid will not secure the
contract, just as any offer (which you incorrecty call "price") below
land's transaction price will not secure the land.

Bidding higher in bridge merely allocates more of the fixed sum of
tricks to the high bidder's contract obligation, just as offering more
for land acquires ownership of more of the fixed sum of land.

Do you think that bidding eight hearts can somehow make a bridge hand
yield 14 tricks?

Then he adds that in some countries the amount of land
sold decreases when the price is rising due to specualtion. Sorry Roy
that means the supply curve IS NOT vertical.

Wrong. It just means that the unsold land has no price.
Unfortunately, you have decided to keep yourself permanently ignorant
of the fact that price requires a transaction by definition.

Land taxes have their arguments but Roy muddles them way too much and
he refuses to learn the proper argument. Instead he attacks anyone who
points out that HIS understanding of the LVT is entirely wrong and
muddled. They calls them anti-LVT because they do not subscribe to
High Priest Roy's misunderstanding of economics. If Roy would open his
eyes he would see that the real economic case is much more sound and
solid than I define it that way so therefore it is or the it is self
evident to those who believe.

Gibberish.

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.

No the amount of land offered for sale is less when price is low.

<yawn> You still refuse to learn. If price is low, the land has sold
for a low price. And furthermore, the amount of land offered for sale
is almost always _GREATER_ when prices are low.

What you call supplied is the carpenters definition not the economic
definition.

Wrong. What you call "price" is the housewives' definition, not the
economic definition.

I have a car. It is not for sale because I do not want to
sell at the price the market would offer for it.

No, you are still just trying to be wrong, and succeeding. It has no
price because you are not willing to sell for the amount the market is
offering.

In economic terms I
am not supplying the car yet it exist. The same goes for land. I can
subdivide my lot and sell the raw land that I have to mow. I will not
because the market price for it is less than the value I put on it.

There is by definition no market price for it, as it has not sold. It
has a market VALUE, but not a market PRICE.

Clear?

Of course it is clear. You just permanently refuse to know it.

My
land exist but it is not supplied on the market. If the price rises I
will sell.

The price can't rise, because it does not exist at all until the land
sells.

Then it will be part of quantity supplied. Roy wants to
stick to a carpenters definition of supply. That is what is on hand is
the supply whether or not I will use it or sell it.

<sigh> Supply is the amount sold at a given price. Price is how much
it sold for. Whatever a land parcel's price, it sells for that
amount, _BY_DEFINITION_. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on
the subject permanently.

Have you figured out yet why that claim was and is utter nonsense?

You obviously are spouting more nonsense. Again I ask you the
question, if you own a piece of land that is worth $500 to you will
you sell when the price is $400?

And again I give you the answer: if I don't sell it for $400, the
price _can't_ be $400, any more than it can be $4 or $4T. But if the
price is $400, then I must have sold it for $400, no matter how much
it might have been worth to me.

Capisci?

Will you sell when the price is $550?

Yep. Because if it has a price, no matter _what_ that price is, I
must have sold it for that price _BY_DEFINITON_.

If the answers to the first is no and the second yes then the
supply curve IS NOT perfectly inelastic.

Your brain is perfectly inelastic.

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.

According to high priest Roy.

According to any good dictionary.

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?

The ability to pay principle those with high incomes should pay more
tax than those with lower incomes.

No, that is just false, because income does not confer ability to pay.
Assets do.

Why do you always try to be wrong about everything?

Why define progressivity according to income rather than assets?

Assets are illiquid

Flat false. Liquidity of assets depends on the type of asset. Cash
is a highly liquid asset.

Why do you always try to be wrong about everything?

and we want incentives to hold assets like capital.

Why would we want incentives to _hold_ capital rather than to _use_
it? What good does it do society for people to hold capital? What on
earth good is it for people to have road-grading equipment parked in
their back yards?

And more importantly, why do you always try to be wrong about
everything?

Taxing capital and land redistributes the assets.

To those who will use them most productively. Right.

People do not invest as much in capital if you tax it.

We only want people to invest in capital if it will be used
productively. Parking road-grading equipment in your back yard is an
investment in capital, but wastes society's resources.

Capital is an asset.

?? What? You actually made a correct statement!!! You are no longer
wrong about everything! Congratulations!! You have proved that your
IQ is greater than that of a radish.

Some people will work less when income is taxed.

So much for "labor supply is highly inelastic."

The majority of the data
show the majority of the people do not adjust work habits to tax
changes.

Maybe because the majority of people have normal 9-5 jobs, and it
would be rather inconvenient for their employers if some people wanted
to work late and others didn't? Hello?

Obviously if we tax labor too high no one works. No one works
if the government taxes labor at 100%.

Actually, they do, as many people work at jobs they would do for free.
Playboy photographer might be one of them.

So there are rates where all
incomes will work less if labor taxes get too high. In the past this
did happen with the high income group. However, at current tax rates a
small decrease in taxes in unlikely to encourage more or a small
increase in taxes is unlikely to discourage work.

I agree that at current US income tax rates, the incentive effects of
any small change in the top rates would be vanishingly small. The
effect at the bottom, where a small difference in take-home pay can
make a substantial difference in quality of life (vide Mr. Micawber),
could be larger.

The Clinton and Bush
tax increases where small. We went from 28% on the top to 32% to 35%.
This is still half the rate under Carter. Incentive to work hardly
changed. Now at high tax rates it was very discouraging to work. A lot
of the increasing disparity under Reagan was because the rich worked
and invested more due to lower tax rates.

Garbage. The rich didn't work any more. They just crystallized more
capital gains, took more stock options, etc.

You still do not understand that if the land market is a monopoly the
tax will change incentives.

?? I have explained to you repeatedly how it will change incentives.

If price affects the amount of land sold
on the market, the tax will affect how much land is sold.

Right conclusion, fallacious premise.

It redistributes from people who had a higher value on the land before
the tax to those who put a lower value on the land.

?? If that meant anything, it would be wrong.

That is not efficient.

It is not meaningful.

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?

A completely normative question that I can offer no proof for or
against.

Translation: don't confuse you with facts.

I as argued before this is the crux of your argument. This is
an argument about fairness.

It's also about how good an idea it is to punish people in proportion
as they contribute, as opposed to requiring payment from them in
proportion as they benefit.

You seem to be aware of the "ability to pay" principle. Why do you
refuse to know the "beneficiary pay" principle?

I can logically debate efficiency and show
you why the LVT is not efficient but perhaps better than many taxes.

No, you can't.

I can not prove or disprove what is fair. That is a value judgement
that people of different backgrounds will have different opinions on.

And your opinion is that whatever profits you the most in return for
the least contribution is fair. Thought so.

I can
scientifically argue efficiency I can not scientifically argue values.

That's OK. I can.

This would be like arguing if Buddhism is better than Christianity.

No, it would not.

I can not scientifically argue that.

Or anything else.

There are even value judgements in
what you call productive. So I will stay silent on this question.

Hallelujah!

You have your beliefs and you are entitled to them. I will not try to
change your beliefs. I will however, put out where your idea of the
scientific argument is wrong and lacking. Which it is in many places.
I think part of the reason why i still have this discussion with you
is simply because you take a good idea and then attribute such bad
analysis and such false arguments to it that you ruin the good idea.
You are like Pinochet who looked at Freidman and got it all wrong. The
end result was disaster.

Well, at least you know it was disaster.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages