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

On Mar 8, 4:30 pm, ro...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 20:13:52 -0800 (PST), Lysander

<lysan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:19 pm, ro...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:32:41 -0800 (PST), Lysander

Roy I have been trying to explain this to you. If land is
monopolistically competitive there is no supply curve.

There is no supply curve anyway.


Yet supply is perfectly inelastic. Sure.

If there is no
supply curve you can not argue supply is perfectly inelastic.

Wrong. The fact that the supply of land is fixed (perfectly
inelastic) IMPLIES there is no supply curve.


No perfectly inelastic supply means a supply curve exist it is just a
vertical line.

If you
make ANY arguments about supply you are assuming a perfectly
competitive market.

Wrong. Land is a canonical example of monopoly.


No it is not. There is no single seller of a good with no close
substitutes. You have many sellers or perhaps a few sellers and many
buyers therefore it is not monopoly. Google definition of monopoly.
You haven't the faintest notion of what it is.



I fully understand that and have explained you to that land is likely
monopolistic competition. It is you that is arguing that there exist a
supply curve for land and that that supply is perfectly inelastic. The
two concepts do not go together.

Wrong. A supply curve implies that supply can vary by price. But it
can't.


No a supply curve with an elasticity of supply of 0, perfectly
inelastic, is still a supply curve. Roy needs some serious study in
economics.


Correct. It is monopolistic competition therefore you can make NO
arguments as to the elasticity of supply.

Non sequitur. The supply of each land parcel is fixed

There is no such thing as the supply of each parcel. You have no idea
what the terms mean. Take a microeconomics course.



No. You are wrong in making the previous argument then arguing that
supply is perfectly inelastic.

Fixed = perfectly inelastic. The supply of each land parcel is fixed.

A market is more than one land parcel Roy.


You are just stupid and sishonest,

sishonest?

and will say and believe ANYTHING

On the contrary I speak only of accepted theory that has empirical
evidence to back it up.

WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing the self-evident and indisputable
facts of objective reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil.

Here we go with high priest Roy, it is the proof is self evident if
you believe. If you do not believe you are evil. Are you a
reincarnation of Pope Urban?

As I explained earlier either it is
imperfect competition and there is no supply curve or it is perfect
competition and you have a measurement of elasticity of supply.

False dichotomy fallacy.


No fallacy here. This is accepted theory. You should learn something
about it.

You can not have it both ways.

I don't want it either way.

It sounds like you may finally be getting
this through your thick head. You either argue imperfect competition
and the tax can move the equilibrium close to efficiency

?? ROTFL!!

Aren't you the same $#!+-for-brains who claimed efficiency was a
binary condition, and there was no such thing as moving "closer to"
efficiency?


Moving closer to efficiency is the correct term. Yes it is either
efficient or not efficient. A solution where 100 goods are sold is
closer to the solution where 90 goods are sold if 110 goods are
efficient. I never argued there was no such thing as moving closer to
efficiency. I argued correctly there are no degrees of efficiency and
no concept of more efficient as you tried to claim.

Remember?

Very well.


or you argue
that it is perfect competition and the market is efficient before and
after the tax. You can not mix the two concepts together.

Wrong. There are two ways to consider it:

Two distinct ways that should not be muddled together into one.

the simplified theoretical
analysis where production decisions are unaffected by the tax,

Perfect competition

and the
real-world analysis where people do not treat cash costs the same as
opportunity costs, and land moves into more productive hands,
improving allocation.


No. The other theoretical idea were it is not perfect competition.
Each landowner has a monopoly over his piece land and there are many
potential buyers. Land is held by those who are not using it to the
best value. They wish to sell at a high price than the competitive
price, pricing people who would use the land better out of the market.
The tax gives the monopolistic competitor incentive to sell to avoid
the tax and more land changes hands. It has nothing to with cash cost
versus opportunity cost. It has everything to do with imperfect
competition and the lack of competition allowing land owners pricing
power in the market.

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.

It's always all available for purchase, stupid, and all of it trades
at its price. That is why the supply is fixed.

Wrong.

No, it is self-evident and indisputable.

If this were true then it would be a competitive market.

Non sequitur.

All land is available at any price, therefore sellers are price takers not
price makers.

Correct (Hallelujah!). The landowner has no role in setting price.
He simply appropriates the additional production his more advantageous
site makes possible, and that quantity determines the price people are
willing to pay for it. Simple. But you will say and believe ANYTHING
WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing the self-evident and indisputable
facts of objective reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil.

However, you argue earlier product differentiation exist
and sellers are price makers.

There is no production of land, therefore no product, and therefore no
product differentiation. Sellers cannot be price makers when supply
is fixed, as they have no way to influence price.

Stupid.

Therefore not all land is always available for purchase.

But in fact, it is. How could it not be? It all already exists,
without anyone having to lift a finger. If someone doesn't want to
sell theirs for a given price, that is irrelevant: it just means they
have most recently purchased it themselves, and are using it
themselves in their capacity as land user.

Not if people do not adjust how much labor they will sell when wages
changes.

Which they do.

The evidence is heavily against you here.

No, of course it isn't. You just consider lousy science to be
evidence.

THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT WAGES HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON
HOURS OF LABOR PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO SELL!

No, it doesn't. It shows that there are other factors in operation,
such as mandatory overtime and hours-of-work laws, fixed employer
opening hours, progressive income taxes, welfare, etc., etc.

You are only arguing reasons for why labor DEMAND may be perfectly
inelastic.

Lie. Welfare and progressive income taxes both affect supply.
Obviously.

This says nothing about labor supply.

ROTFL!!! And how do EMPIRICAL STUDIES separate the effects of changes
to the supply and demand curves on quantity...?

I'm waiting.

Empirical studies CAN'T examine how much labor people are _WILLING_ to
sell, only how much they actually _DO_ sell. And that also depends on
demand, not just supply.

Labor supply is the
amount of productive effort AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BUT LAND SUPPLY IS
THE AMOUNT OF LAND IN EXISTENCE!

Because it is always all available to users, even if the user is the
owner. Right.

Supply says nothing about use only willingness to sell. I do not have
to be using the land to sell it.

Right. But if you don't sell it, it's because you think you have a
better use for it.

However, it will ELIMINATE
THE LAND SOLD if the amount is too high.

Wrong again. If the tax is too high, owners will _GIVE_ the land
away.

No the government will confiscate the land for non payment of taxes
because no one will want the stinking land if the tax is too high.

Thank you for agreeing that I am totally right, and the owners will
give the land away if the tax is too high. You are obviously far too
ignorant to know this fact, but land taxes have (very occasionally)
been set too high, and owners have _IN_FACT_ abandoned the land and
given it away.

You
would have to find some dumb son of a bitch to take a piece of land
where the tax was above the value of the land to anyone.

So? Some dumb sonsabitches want to eat. When a land tax exceeds the
land rent, it just begins to bear on wages and interest -- like an
income tax. People do still produce and invest even though they have
to pay income taxes, you know.

Stupid.

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.

??? They don't have to buy: the landowner is giving the land away.

No if price is 0 there is no tax!

Wrong again. The price _can't_ be zero unless the tax is at least
equal to the rent. Such a tax just can't be levied on a base of land
_VALUE_.

Stupid.

Yes you are. What you accept land taxed at 120% of the value of the
land if it were free.

I have said no such thing, stupid, lying garbage. To reduce price to
zero, the ad valorem tax rate would have to be effectively infinite,
not 120%.

Stupid.

Sellers can not sell and
let the government take the land over back taxes. The market collapses
and the STATE owns the land.

Nonsense. If _all_ the land has no value, and no one wants to use it,

Which means they do not pay the tax and can not give it away. The
government must confiscate it.

What would be the point of confiscating it, if no one will pay tax on
it or use it?

You are just proving how stupid you are.

on what basis is the "too-high" tax liability being calculated?

Too high means that the tax payment is more than what the land is
worth to anyone.

So? I repeat: on what basis is the "too-high" tax liability being
calculated? It can't be value: any tax rate multiplied by zero value
is still zero tax.

I'm waiting.

So no one wants to own the land. The seller wants to
get rid of the land but no one will buy because the tax burden is
greater than the value.

I repeat: on what basis is the "too-high" land tax liability being
calculated?

I'm waiting.

Sellers default on taxes and the state owns the land.

So what? It's not like the private landowners were contributing
anything that will be missed.

Which is what Geoist believe should happen. Let the state
own the land and lease it to people through taxes.

Like they did in Hong Kong, making it a world exemplar of freedom,
prosperity and competitive enterprise.

That is socialism in its purest form.

?? ROTFL!!!

No. That is simply another bald lie. Socialism in its purest -- and
only _genuine_ -- form is collective ownership of the means of
production: land _AND_CAPITAL_. I have explained that to you, very
clearly and patiently, many times. You just
...

read more »

.

Relevant Pages