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

Lysander wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:14 pm, ro...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:02:25 -0500, RogerDodger <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


No, it is the total amount available for purchase. If no one tries to
sell a Rembrandt on the market in a given year, it doesn't mean the
supply of Rembrandts is zero. It just means the market is illiquid.


No it means the quantity supplied of Rembrandts is 0 at the current
market price. Learn the terms. There is huge difference between supply
and quantity supplied. Supply is 0 makes no sense. Quantity supplied
is 0 does make sense.


He is using shorthand. It is a tenet of interpersonal communications to
try to understand what is being said.

Land does not have to be "brought to market" to be used, as wild
animals prove every moment of their lives.

No but it has be brought to the market to be sold. Quantity supplied
is amount people will sell at a given price. Supply is the collection
of possible prices paired with the corresponding quantity supplied. So
far you are failing the first 4 weeks of any principles course.

So landowners NEVER "bring land to market."

Of course they do. They say I would like to sell and they give an ask
price. The supply curve represents ask prices.


Friedman pointed out that labor supply certainly *is* inelastic in the
"physical existence" sense in the near to intermediate term --
dropping a big tax on labor doesn't reduce the population or number
ofr workers at all at the time
That is an equivocation fallacy.

No the fallacy is you do not understand what supply means.


We have as the prime invariant for labor the forty-hour work week.
That swamps any preferences input, excepting when it doesn't (like
some sales jobs or at an i-bank). And, once some people have enough
investment income, they no longer work. Employment is but one
way people derive income.

The supply of
labor is not the workforce, it is the amount of productive effort
available for purchase,

Just as the Quantity supplied of land is the amount of land AVAILABLE
FOR PURCHASE. Perhaps you do understand this stuff and are
intentionally muddling it to fit your emotions.

and levying a big tax on it will certainly
reduce that amount.

Not if people do not adjust how much labor they will sell when wages
changes. THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT WAGES HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON
HOURS OF LABOR PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO SELL!


If people were in a position to where there was a legitimate trade
of hours for money, you would not see that. They are not. People
who "eat what they kill" tend to either work very hard or have
built an enterprise where they don't have to work so hard.

There may be evidence that there is no linear trade between work and
wages, but I'm certainly unwilling to assume that is true under
the right conditions. Sure, there are conditions under which it
fails.

The Georgists believe too that once people stop having to trade
labor for *rent*, that the allocation of labor becomes much more efficient. I suspect this is a deflationary disaster, and the
attendant breakdown of society makes it irrelevant. The psychological
shock would be too great.

Friedman should have known better; but in
fairness, equivocation fallacies are extremely common, and very easy
to fall into.


Roy should know. He is falling into one himself. Labor supply is the
amount of productive effort AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BUT LAND SUPPLY IS
THE AMOUNT OF LAND IN EXISTENCE!



The amount of land in *useable* form is not fixed. Indeed, rent is
created by adjacent improvements and the people who occupy them.
A parking lot in NYC is worth what thousands of acres in Kansas brings.

Improvements are completely separable from land position rent.

But no amount of tax will eliminate land or cause owners to demolish
it.


Equivocation fallacy again. No it will not eliminate land just as a
tax on labor will not eliminate workers. However, it will ELIMINATE
THE LAND SOLD if the amount is too high. If the tax is too high,
people will not be able to make a surplus on the land (meaning the
price - value to the buyer) and will not buy. Sellers can not sell and
let the government take the land over back taxes. The market collapses
and the STATE owns the land. Heil Comrade Karl socialism will reign.


The trustees of the land trust administering the use of the land
has a fiduciary duty to optimize income for the trust. That includes
setting the price. This board must be highly transparent and
rigorously governed - I don't think anybody could argue that. It
would be a tough job.

--
Les Cargill
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The monopolization of the air and Georgism
    ... as much as people are willing to buy at the current price level. ... A supply curve represents willingness to sell. ... markets the willingness to sell depends on the benefit of the land to ... Monet paintings, WWII rifles, Picasso paintings, labor, and land all ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Get em while they are hot!
    ... I think it sucks that I have to sell 2 basically new machines to ... Or they could not change the price and still sell them as fast as ... They could grab some market share if they just dropped the price ... me like i'm nuts for spending that much money on a computer of any ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: The monopolization of the air and Georgism
    ... >>individual farmer or the individual land owner HAS LITTLE TO NO POWER ... >>price ranges. ... Do you understand how a supply curve is derived? ... based on the willingness to sell. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: better tax code: no income tax, head tax (&| ppty t)
    ... It just means the market is illiquid. ... is amount people will sell at a given price. ... Just as the Quantity supplied of land is the amount of land AVAILABLE ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: better tax code: no income tax, head tax (&| ppty t)
    ... PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO SELL AT THAT PRICE, ... People are willing to sell the same amount of land at whatever the ... curve is perfectly inelastic. ...
    (sci.econ)