A sales tax is inherently unfair. That is why using the term, "FairTax" to denote a federal sales tax scheme is a grotesque lie. But of course, they needn't do so at all. Not all citizens buy gas, so not all citizens pay the federal gas tax. Not all citizens buy tobacco, so not all citizens pay the tobacco excise tax. Etc. Every claim you make seems to be false. What a fatuous statement. They "can" do so, but that is in no sense an argument that they rightly should do so. It is obvious, for example, that an income tax should bear exclusively on the unearned economic rent incomes of rich, greedy, privileged parasites, which are gifts to the privileged rich from society, and not on the earned incomes of the productive, which are the measure of what the recipient is contributing TO society. That is what the British "income" tax of the 19th century did, which is why it was so successful in stimulating growth of the British economy and middle class. At that time, "income" meant investment income, especially land rents, and that is what the income tax taxed. Earned income was at that time called "wages," and was not taxed.
Then you don't understand basic taxation theory. The two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation theory are, "beneficiary pay" and "ability to pay." Now, granted, income is not a very good measure of either benefit received or ability to pay. But it is certain that requiring everyone to pay some "income" tax when not everyone has income, or income over some threshold, would be a grotesquely misguided policy. Why would anyone care that you "want" the poor to be punished for your sins? But that isn't their fair share. That's just a stupid lie from you, as I already proved to you, and you know it. Stop telling such stupid lies. It is "society" that has economically disenfranchised them by removing their rights to liberty for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites. They are paying other federal taxes than income tax. You know this. So STOP LYING. Someone who is too apathetic to vote is also too apathetic to inform himself on the issues sufficiently to cast an informed vote. So I don't want him voting. Hehe. Yeah. But maybe first think about making sure that every citizens' rights are actually defended rather than violated by government, so they actually DO have a horse in the race.
Technically its not 'analysis'. Its just saying 'land tax' a lot whilst calling everyone out of the cult 'evil'. The term 'significant' is being abused here. You want to employ it in the same way as the single taxers, deliberately exaggerating the role of land to fit your agenda. Land tax is just another tax that can be used to derive an optimal system. That will assuredly include taxes that you rant about. Practicalities demand it. If you had just a little inkling about reality you'd therefore be focused on consideration of optimality. Your attempt to dismiss the poverty trap (which assuredly is going to be an issue in any feasible system) has described that you're not interested in that. You rant about land, nothing more. How easily you try to fib! You provide no content and you attack modern economics because it doesn't include Long Dead George as an important thinker. I do feel sympathy though. I don't like seeing you completely incapable of answering posts with anything but unimaginative bile
High poverty, low social mobility, and underclass problems...are not a cause and effect of federal income taxes! Group mentality indicates you are not looking at specific societal problems to find solution at the lowest levels of effects, and instead create arbitrary groups (poverty, the poor, the wealthy, etc.). Pitting one economic class against another economic class is noting but political BS. Your 'valid comparison' is completely subjective. What you believe to be a valid comparison; I do not! I don't appreciate group mentality, I don't appreciate politics, and I don't appreciate the lack of focus on the root issues. If you can define a single effect of all Americans paying some share of federal income taxes, then we can discuss that effect and find solution...
Technically, that's called, "lying your head off, again." Only by you. LOL! The recent and ongoing global financial crisis, caused by land speculation (as most of them have been), proves you not only wrong, but wildly, stupidly, and hilariously wrong. No; as you are aware, I have proved to you many times that a land value tax is fundamentally different from all other taxes, because landowners are privileged to charge others full market value for access to the services and infrastructure government spending provides. It therefore RECOVERS THE VALUE THAT GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CREATES, TO PAY FOR THAT SPENDING. It is the only form of tax that can possibly do that, and is therefore the ONLY POSSIBLE form of tax that can make most government spending in a modern democracy pay for itself, eliminating the welfare subsidy giveaway to rich, privileged, landed parasites, and lifting the burden of taxation from the shoulders of the productive, especially working people. Uh-huh. Which must be why you seize on (and when there is nothing to seize on, fabricate) every opportunity to slag, dismiss, derogate, deride, ridicule, sneer at, spit on, revile and attack recovery of the publicly created rent of land for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it. I am entirely concerned with optimality. OTC, it is YOU who seek to make the tax system sub-optimal by leaving publicly created land rent in the hands of private landowners, and instead funding government services by stealing wealth from those who produce it. Lie. I have described the potential for a poverty trap in a pure land rent recovery system, and how to remove it through a uniform, universal individual land rent exemption analogous to the universal individual income tax exemption. <sigh> There is no other possible way to recover the value government spending on services and infrastructure creates, and therefore no other way to avoid making government an engine for the subsidization of idle landowning at the expense of the productive, especially working people. It is inherently and immutably impossible. Lie. That is a flat-out lie. The fact is, I agree: George WASN'T an important thinker. He really only had one good idea, and it was based on economics that had been known for well over 100 years, since the time of Quesnay and Turgot, and widely known for over 50 years, since the time of Ricardo. He was an important clarifier and popularizer of that economics, but he did not discover the relevant facts and principles, which would be just the same if he had never existed. As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
Have you ever contributed to a thread without referring to the following vocab?: land tax, lie and evil. I'm being serious here. You follow such an one dimensional script, typically to avoid reference to modern economics, that I just can't see you doing anything different. The current crisis was the result of neo-liberalism. Marxists, not Georgists, have more to offer Get it right now: you've gone on and on about land tax despite knowing that Georgism is a failure and practical tax systsms require economic analysis beyond the cultists' abilities. We see that with reference to poverty traps. Rather than making sound comment about how these problems can be minimised, there is instead empty rant about income taxes (and a deliberate confusion with the analysis required with, as mentioned, the likes of an unemployment trap) The problem is that the internet Georigts are stuck in the 19th century. There is no understanding of, for example, economic rents. There is only a land obsession that ensures no appreciation of the importance of the theory of the firm. You know that of course and that's why you're completely reliant on these empty huffs. Clearly untrue. You're only interested in peddling a Georgist land dogma that completely ignores the optimal tax literature. The interesting aspect with that literature is the critique of the neoclassical approach; an area which you could entertain if you had bothered with knowledge. Again you peddle untruth. I have no problem with land tax. I just acknowledge its a relatively minor issue compared with, for example, the economic rents generated through underpayment and underemployment You've ranted that poverty traps are somehow income tax specific. I've shown how ridiculous that the comment was and you've since given inane bluster about land that ignores feasible tax system. You remind me somewhat of utopian socialist. Its all foot stamping and a complete lack of substance. Super! Perhaps you've been misunderstood. Perhaps, with a little patience and of course assistance where required, you can get through your land obsession and embrace a modern economics approach that really appreciates the failure of the Georgists. That would be most splendid! God bless your little heart!
Ho-ho! That may qualify as howler of the millennium. Aside from your tireless efforts to dismiss the LVT at every possible opportunity, there's the little fact that you once specifically told me you oppose the LVT as a solution to the land problem. When I asked you to provide your alternative remedy, you flat-out refused. Your dishonesty on this topic is legendary. The sheer gall to make the above comment may qualify as evidence of the supernatural.
Yes. There's a reason I want to avoid reference to "modern" economics: it is, as Nobel laureates in economics have observed and Steve Keen has demonstrated, largely a load of cobblers. Nope. Couldn't be. Neoliberalism has been around for decades, but it was only when land speculation completely took over the US banking system (and was rampant in many other countries, including Spain, the UK, Ireland, Iceland, China, etc.) that the global financial system really tottered on the edge of the abyss. ROTFL!! Marxists haven't been right about anything in 150 years -- and don't start yapping about Marxists "predicting" the financial crisis: they've predicted 83 of the last 9 financial crises. It requires more than familiarity with the elaborate epicycle theories of "modern" economics: it requires a willing suspension of the knowledge that modern tax systems are indefensible not only economically, but in every way other than politically. Income tax is the standard source of poverty traps. LOL! When "economic" rent is redefined so that skilled workers collect it but landowners don't, it has not been done for lack of understanding -- and it is not a lack of understanding that leads me to reject such absurd lies out of hand. <yawn> I know that compared to the known FACTS about land, the theory of the firm is of no importance whatever. Heehee... Would that be the "optimal tax literature" dogma that completely ignores and ruthlessly excises all facts of land economics? Everyone reading this knows that is a lie, including you. Garbage. Land rent is probably an order of magnitude greater than the returns you erroneously call economic rents. You've lied about what I plainly wrote, as already proved. The most inane bluster here is your bluster that land taxation is somehow not feasible, when it was indisputably used with great success even in ancient societies where hardly anyone could read. As they say in Japan, "Its mirror time!"
Can you provide an example? This is an ignorant comment. Modern economics encompasses numerous schools of thought (and, compared to the original political economy adopted, seen great strides because of the cross-fertilisation between the different academic disciplines). All you have achieved is illustrated that you just don't understand economics. This is probably a combination of the negative impact of your land dogma (which leads to a very simplistic viewpoint characterised by your monotonous use of the vocab 'land tax', 'lie' and 'evil') and a lack of reading. And we've seen instabilities for decades. The difference here was the hegemony of the financial class and the inconsistency between the profit objective and efficiency criteria. Its a further breakdown of the invisible hand (already corrupted by the tendency towards market concentration and the pricing policies that, when a shock hits, multiplies the problems experienced by the competitive sector) Again you only show your innocence. Its not possible to understand how the economy has evolved without reference to Marxism. You may not like that, given your one dimensional Georgism, but an objective study of political economy will come to that conclusion. We know that supply & demand cannot understand labour market outcome. We do know that other schools provide insights. Institutionalism, for example, is a vital aspect in understand numerous phenomena (from the failure of economies of scale to understand the boundaries of the firm to its insight into discrimination and the limitations of the neoclassical approach). However, anyone really interested in understanding issues such as unemployment will necessarily have to refer to Marxism. Your approach requires nothing: it requires no understanding of the firm, the labour market or any empirical phenomena. It is just a dogma that refers, without thought, about land. This is repetition of your original error. Its a shame that we're not seeing any progress in your thinking, particularly as it is such a simple point: a poverty trap is not income tax specific; it is, however, focused on how tax and benefits interact. Most economies of course employ an income tax. 'Actual' tax systems of course aren't of any interest to you. Your focus isn't on the feasible, its just focused on obsessing over land in order to avoid practical tax systems. You actually make the Fairtax supporters look decidedly advanced in their outlook! We have a straightforward result: you think that you can understand economic rents by just going on and on and on about land. That is a very ignorant outlook. The consequences are obvious: you cannot, for example, provided any explanation for the underpayment and underemployment that inflict capitalist economies. A terribly silly comment! Its not possible to understand economic outcome without attempting to understand key economic agents. The Austrians at least pretend that they can offer explanation for firm behaviour. You, in contrast, think you can understand result by just adopting a land cultism. It is nice, however, to see your honesty over this drastic limitation in your approach. Another silly comment that only advertises your lack of reading on this subject. Land economics will of course be a part of the literature. The key vocab is part of, a reality that makes a mockery of your position. In conclusion, you avoid the analysis into tax because it will necessarily destroy your dogmatic position for what it is. This amused me. Perhaps you can provide an empirical source that supports this position? We both know that you will dodge, provide nothing and come out with the standard rant script. However, it would be rude not to give you an opportunity to defend your comment with a little sense. A vacuous comment. No one hasn't said land tax is infeasible. However, within a feasible tax system, it is just one tax of many. Again, by referring to reality we'd automatically be attacking your dogmatic position.
how much of the income did they take in, all income, not just labor income... if they earn 90% of the earning, they should pay at the very least 90% of the taxes
To what extent would you use the tax system to support a system of redistribution? i.e. can we simply use 'tax and benefit' transfers, or should we be more focused on why we have such astoundingly aggressive inequalities?
I am for a flat tax for every dollar earned over the poverty line if those making 90% of the income are not paying at least 90% of the taxes, who is the money really being redistributed too?
A true flat tax would take into account diminishing marginal utility of income (i.e. a dollar when we're poor is worth more to us than a dollar when we're rich). That encourages redistribution, by definition
http://www.politicalforum.com/environment-conservation/201417-more-bad-news-mann-briffa.html How true.... Content = 0. No, the neoliberal-dominated economies have been quite stable since WW II, EXCEPT when land speculation was in the ascendant. The hegemony of the financial class was not a causal primary, sorry. And inconsistency between the profit motive and efficiency criteria has always been a characteristic of landowner-dominated societies. Jabber signifying nothing but your absolute determination not to know any fact about land. Again you only show your lack thereof. Clearly false. Marxism is simply irrelevant to accurate economic analysis. It is a historical political movement, not an approach to empirical science. LOL! "Objective"! LOL! When shorn of understanding of the Law of Rent. No, they mostly just make claims, like Marxism. Institutionalism has some interesting things to say -- when it includes facts about land. Marxism never has anything interesting to say. That's clearly a lie. You cannot refute anything I have said, so you have to contrive an excuse to ignore and dismiss it. That is repetition of your claim of error unaccompanied by any actual argument that would indicate error. Content = 0 You just tell stupid lie after stupid lie. We have a straightforward result: you just make $#!+ up. That's just another lie from you. The explanation is simple: the need to divert a substantial fraction of GDP to the parasitic rentier (mainly landowning) class leads to underpayment and unemployment of working people. More accurately, it's not possible to understand economic outcome while refusing to know all facts about land. It's nice to see the confirmation that you have to deride and dismiss land economics because you cannot dispute it. Right: the part that is dismissed, ignored, and derogated, when it isn't got completely wrong. That is a stuipd lie from you. Hasn't happened yet, and I don't anticipate any such event. How much do you claim your "economic rents [sic] generated through underpayment and unemployment" amount to? Land rent is probably at least 20% of GDP: Mason Gaffney, (2009) "The hidden taxable capacity of land: enough and to spare", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 36 Iss: 4, pp.328 - 411 ?? Too tangled to bother with. Already disproved many times. Content = 0
Wow, that's impressive. I didn't think you had it in you. However, you did cheat. You'd be able to avoid land tax when, say, talking about the monthly rainfall to Auntie Mildred and her passion for pygmy goats. Butt can you avoid it when referring to economics? There was nothing in the quote that you could dismiss. Even attempting to critique would tacitly attack your own non-economic position. You don't like modern economics because it renders your position as more than obsolete; it comes across as child-like as you emotively rant about evil this and evil that. As a socialist I have no time for such mindless morality tantrum. Take capitalism. Do I present argument against the social inequalities? Certainly! But the subsequent analysis is focused on the employer and employee, using modern economics to appreciate the links between efficiency and equity. I have no need to mindlessly call people liars and supporters of evil. Political economy deserves better! You'd love the world to be consistent with your 'its land, always about land' Georgist bubble. That's of course painfully inaccurate (in terms of the dissonance generated for your dogma). Neo-liberalism has created instabilities and conditions consistent for financial crisis. The error in thought was the belief that it was somehow specific to the developing world (e.g. Debt crisis). Its certainly true that we can show the losses engineered by the likes of the Washington Consensus. We can show how neo-liberalism has created a result inconsistent with the Ricardian approach to trade: e.g. Even the World Bank has shown how trade has actually reduced economic well-being of Sub-Saharan countries. However, as shown by the current crisis (and predicted by both institutionalist analysis and Marxism), the instabilities are much more widespread. The problem is simple: profit opportunity for the financial class is related to increased instability. The invisible hand then no longer operates. We instead have the profit motive creating shock and then (as understood by the theory of the firm that you hide from, the problems can be magnified by stagflation) No need to apologise. I appreciate your need to ignore economic reality to maintain the Georgist prance. I'm always happy to peruse Georgist offering. All the relevant stuff of course is within very specific areas of study, such as side shows within environmental economics. It can't be used to make any sound conclusion for equity concern in a modern economy. We instead have to refer to the political economic study of all economic agents (and includes the likes of the theory of the firm that you hide from) You're only showing your ignorance here. That Marxism has been key for our understanding of capitalism is indisputable. Take something like unemployment and efficiency wages. The orthodox analysis involved has 'borrowed' heavily from Marxist output. This made me chuckle, particularly given the vibrancy in quantitative marxism. I'm no Marxist. However, I would be a fool to ignore the political economy involved. In contrast, because you have nothing but the one dimensional Georgist dogma, you're inherently threatened by relevant schools of thought. Given your earlier ridiculous comment over the theory of the firm, this is an empty claim. Of course any knowledge of institutionalism (be it the critique of neoclassical economics or the Coasian shift towards transaction costs) would kick the land obsession in the knackers. You're just suffering from dissonance dear chap. This sums up the cretinous nature of internet Georgism. There is no understanding of economic relations (here the need for labour economics), there is only emotiveness to footstamp over land. Hell and fire preachers come across as more reasoned. Your position was lost once the single tax claims were blown out of the water. Its obvious that any reasoned analysis into the modern economy will focus on the firm and the worker. It is our understanding of the labour market that allows us to understand both efficiency and equity issues. Your dogma is obsolete, leading you to make ridiculous claims (such as your desperate attack on home ownership) "Many modern champions of Georgist ideas have withdrawn into a corner, confining themselves to modifying the existing local property tax by exempting businesses"? I can agree with that. Its amusing to me that you're completely reliant on this one paper when, for example, there are dozens on the empirical consistency of the labour theory of value.
No, but you did just lie again. As usual. But that wouldn't be in a thread on this forum, which proves you lied again. As usual. Unlike you, I don't devote my life to avoiding, obscuring, dismissing, ignoring and lying about the elephant in the parlor. More accurately, there was nothing that merited a response. It is the refusal to know facts about land economics that is non-economic, indeed ANTI-economic. Evil exists, and most of it is caused by government policies that "modern" economists have lied to excuse, rationalize and justify. "Modern" economics's pretense of being descriptive and not normative is therefore an absurd, outrageous lie. Being willing to know and to identify facts about evil may strike you as childish, but I suspect you actually know you are serving the greatest evil that has ever existed -- forcible removal of the right to liberty through appropriation of natural resources as property -- and your consistent dishonesty whenever facts about land economics are mentioned is simply a psychological defense mechanism deployed to allow you not to commit suicide. More accurately, as a socialist you have to pretend capital is land in order to justify stealing capital (and the consequent mega-deaths). That requires refusing to know the fact that land is different from capital. But refuse to know their cause -- forcible removal of people's opportunity to produce without supporting a greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning overclass -- and therefore their remedy. But more importantly, to evade the links between liberty, justice and prosperity. It's not mindless: that is in fact what those who oppose liberty, justice and truth literally are. Systematic, institutionalized evil cannot exist without them. I strongly urge you to watch, "Judgment at Nuremberg" and try to learn the lesson it has for you. How true!! But of you, not me. It's not always about land, so you can stop lying. Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you can't. The evil and insane "war on drugs" is not about land. The outrageous system of IP monopolies is not about land. The absurd privilege of private banksters to create money in order to charge interest on it is (mostly) not about land. See how easily I prove you lied? But virtually all issues related to public revenue, poverty, stagnation, etc. ARE about land, because one must pay a landowner for access to the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical resources nature provides. No, the error in thought was the assumption that massive, systematic injustice, if given sufficient rationalization by "modern" economics, would somehow not have destructive results. No, it most certainly has not. It has only shown how institutions designed forcibly to remove people's rights to liberty without just compensation have (unsurprisingly) reduced economic well-being. Because it runs on land rent. ROTLF!! You have the gall to accuse ME of hiding from theory?!?!!? You devote your entire existence to hiding from self-evident and indisputable FACTS. You misspelled, "lie about," as proved by: See? The GFC proves you wrong. It will be interesting to see how the theory of the firm explains the levels of inequality in places like Pakistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe. No, such claims are just absurd. Marxism has never offered any analysis that improved understanding of capitalism, because it is founded on the lie that capital is economically the same as land. And consequently been completely wrong-headed and irrelevant. Hee-hee. Yes, well, the quantitative theory of epicycles was certainly "vibrant" before Kepler... True: but you have many ways to be a fool without relying on Marxism to make you one. Hee-hee. "Marxism." "Relevant." Nope. I couldn't find a way to put them both in the same sentence. LOL! Yes, I'm sure the "Coasian shift" to claiming that all economic problems are caused by not making everything into private property would churn its legs frantically at all facts of land economics. You're just projecting, dear chap. Lie. As usual. Or more accurately, it might have been, if they ever had been. But will not dismiss, ignore, avoid, evade, ridicule, or lie about the crucial facts of economics and objective physical reality. It is impossible to understand the labor market while dismissing, ignoring and evading the fact that the laborer is forcibly deprived of the opportunity to support himself, his family, or society without first supporting a greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning elite. I didn't attack homeownership. You are merely lying again. As usual. You know that I am not. You are just baldly lying again. As usual. Yes, well, the labor theory of value is certainly consistent with the enormous value of raw land, which has had no labor input whatsoever.... Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: it isn't.
What a shame! I was hopinh you could prove me wrong and show a variation in your output that demonstrates a keen awareness of numerous economic issue. Instead you've kept to the one dimensional dodge where you repeatedly make cretinous 'you lie' bluster to avoid reality: your position is indeed wholly reliant on excessive grunt over land tax and subsequent mindless morality humph. I'm happy for you to make these vacuous responses. It is tacit acceptance that you cannot respond. This is of course because you're completely reliant on the Georgist irrelevance, making it impossible for you to consider any economic comment with a resemblance of objective critique. Its little snippets of obviousness, such as the impossibility of using land obsession to provide an explanation for labour market failure, which ensures that cannot enter any economic debate with the required reservation level of good sense. There are two possibilities. Possibility 1: there is a conspiracy in economics such that, even though we are referring to mulktiple schools of thought, they all gang up on the Georgists to negate their importance. Possibility 2: internet Georgists are peddling garbage. Hmm, difficult one! The evil tag is typically used by those incapable of deriving a reasoned argument. It is a most immature attempt at bluster and, on this sub-forum, a means to avoid rational economic comment over efficiency and/or equity. Just noise and hogwash again! As a socialist I merely need to focus on employer and employee. Understanding the positive relationship between efficiency and equity (distinct from the orthodox belief in a simple reverse relationship) is key. In no way does that confuse capital and land. We do, however, have to refer to problems (such as underpayment) that you cannot explain. Understanding how the firm generates economic rents through inefficient underpayment is always going to be beyond your 'its evil' land rant. Avoid any comment over taxes. Stick to foot stamping over the war on drugs. You might come across as more reasoned. But only you think that! And of course you then make ridiculous statement, such as your previous accusation that home owners were thieves (despite the desire for home ownership increasing with the risk of poverty) Peddling a land rant that ignores modern economics isn't about celebrating facts. At best its an example of dissonance. At worst its cultism, using a dogma to coerce an one dimensional morality preach. It would refer, for example, how dynamoc comparative advantage is not automatically delivered. That Marxism has been integral for our understanding of capitalism is just matter of fact. As I mentioned, even the orthodox economist has to 'borrow' from Marxist analysis to understand empirical phenomena such as mass unemployment. Your post has included more immature remark than normal. Its becoming difficult to respond to anything! Try and at least blag argument Again you've already shown that, when referring to land, you cannot entertain the available labour economics. We saw that with the Oswald hypothesis, used to indicate how an equilibrium unemployment rate can be increasedd by the immobility created through the transaction costs associated with owner occupation. Crikey, do we have to directly quote you again? The cat is out of the bag. You've made the comments. Yoube tried to backtrack of course. When we do get you to provide something alien to the Georgist script you're prone to ridiculous remark. Why do you think that, whilst there are multiple papers providing empirical support for the labour theory of the value, you're reliant on one paper that admits that Georgists have all run off to talk about rather minor issues?
Blatant false dichotomy fallacy. No conspiracy is required for a group of people with a common interest to act in that common interest. Someone who pretends to economic sophistication should certainly have known that. I don't know if that is true or not; but even if it is, it does not mean evil does not exist. ROTFL!! You are the one avoiding rational economic comment, sorry. Right. You need to delete all relevant facts about land. So that is what you do. Right. And you have made yourself permanently incapable of understanding it by refusing to know there is a negative relationship between equity and institutional arrangements that deprive people of their rights without just compensation in order to enable private appropriation of publicly created value. Right. Socialists confuse capital and land when they refuse to know the fact that the capitalist provides capital but the landowner does not provide land. No, you're just lying again. Underpayment is fully explained by the operation of the Law of Rent, combined with the effects of removal of the right to liberty and private appropriation of publicly created land value. Understanding how the firm is enabled to do that is always going to be beyond your capacity as long as you refuse to know that landowner privilege forcibly deprives the worker of alternatives. That's clearly just another lie; and even if it weren't, it would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy. You again lie about what I plainly wrote, in order to maintain your anti-fact prance. Actually, that is exactly what it is. See Steve Keen, "Debunking Economics, the Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences." LOL! And of course ignore landowner privilege... No, it's just your false opinion. ROTFL!!! Exactly. The orthodox "modern" economist has to copy Marxist errors in order to delete the fact that mass unemployment is caused by forcible removal of the workers' liberty to access the available alternatives without paying both a landowner's extortion demands and taxes that bear on his production. I've refuted fallacious and dishonest labor "economics" that relies on anti-fact prance. And you accuse me of obsessing over sideshows!! ROTFL!! <yawn> You could, if you wanted me to prove you lied again. Indeed. I've made lots of comments. Just not the ones you claim I've made. Even though it was conclusively refuted by Jevons well over a century ago... You're reliant on lying. That is normal, routine, and expected. Now you're even lying about what that paper plainly said. You are such a complete waste of electricity.
The only common interest is the attempt to understand economic outcome. That interest of course makes the Georgist land grunt look decidedly child-like. In reality you require a conspiracy or you have to admit that you're poorly read on the subject. Pick one! Now you've again posted nothing but one liner grunt. I'll ask you again (and please at least try and provide coherent argument this time): why are you reliant on this one paper (which makes valid remarks like "many modern champions of Georgist ideas have withdrawn into a corner, confining themselves to modifying the existing local property tax by exempting businesses") and why is the empirical evidence into the LVT so much more extensive? Is this part of the conspiracy that you need to dodge from all modern economic analysis?
Objectively wrong. The interest of the privileged is clearly to PREVENT understanding of economic outcome. And that is what you are here to do. Your infantile whimpering and content-free foot stamping does not impress. In reality, one of the things we know about conspiracies is that there have been more conspiracies than we know about. I don't "require a conspiracy," that is just another stupid lie on your part, nor am I poorly read on the subject. I just don't believe everything I read merely because it appeared in a journal of "modern" economics. You again whimper like a little girl, stamp your foot, and avoid content. Why do you always have to lie? Please try to answer this time. I know you wish to evade your invariable dishonesty, but it is tiresome. It is "modern" economic "analysis" that needs to dodge from all facts about land, as you have proved so very conclusively.
One liner attempt at dodge (and a poor one at that, even for your usual efforts): compared to this one paper (which admittedly makes valid remarks like "many modern champions of Georgist ideas have withdrawn into a corner, confining themselves to modifying the existing local property tax by exempting businesses"), why is the empirical evidence into the LVT so much more extensive? Please answer the question!
And why have so 'many modern champions of Georgist ideas...withdrawn into a corner, confining themselves to modifying the existing local property tax by exempting businesses'?
I don't know. Ask them. My guess: they are not actually Georgists or even geoists, but co-opted political tools like the idiots at the Lincoln Institute.
