FairTax Act-Is it a viable solution?

In Good Ole Henry’s time you’d have a point. Capitalism, despite your failure to realize the bleedin obvious, has significantly changed. It’s the labour market where we can appreciate inefficiency through the creation of economic rents, such as the replacement of the invisible hand with a managerial class used to maintain exploitative relations within firm hierarchy.

I only deal with reality. The Georgist will exaggerate the role of land, typically using that to ignore political economy. You exaggerate land. That disciple of yours does the same.

It’s a tedious game where land is deliberately skewed to fit into the petty script. We see similar tosh in more modern analysis. For example, the existence of counter-cyclical expenditure will often be assumed- quite bogusly- to be an example of Keynesianism. I have no time for it. Of course, as a socialist, I’d consider nationalization of land. However, I wouldn’t use the attempt at logic from a failed marginal school. I’d adapt, for example, concepts such as the tragedy of the anti-commons.

I merely laugh at the ranting of Georgism 101, where bogus arguments are used without any consideration of modern economic analysis.

That you have deliberately ignored how capitalism has evolved is a statement of fact. You’re embarrassing yourself

Another random reply. Weren’t you the fellow that suggested neoclassical economics was some conspiracy against Good Ole Henry?

 

Exaggerate? Were you aware that the US' recent "housing" bubble was on on the order of $8T?

Also, I've asked before, but why not have another go?

Under your ideal scheme, can I own a business? Can I hire employees who I pay a salary?

 

You are just lying again.

The literature on the epistemological flaws in "modern" mainstream neoclassical economics is voluminous, and much of the criticism is accurate, as the "post-autistics" have struggled to articulate. The modern discipline of economics is highly analogous with the planetary cosmology of the Renaissance era, with its dizzyingly complex mathematical systems of epicycles, all concocted to maintain, by any means whatever, the objectively false assumption underlying the whole mess.

You are just lying again. Analysis of the effects of taxes levied on factors in elastic supply is not relevant to taxes on factors in fixed supply. It's that simple.

<yawn> Content = 0. Inevitably.

I've done the reading. What you call "modern" economic analysis is shot through with fallacies and special pleading. I'm talking Kepler's Laws, and you can't imagine anything but epicycles. Sorry, I'm not going to discuss your epicycles with you. It is they that are really irrelevant, not Kepler.

It's certainly true that you spend no time whatever actually responding to any facts about land economics or land rent recovery. But you clearly spend an inordinate amount of time on your anti-land tax disinformation propaganda campaign.

What is obvious is that I have addressed that issue multiple times in this thread, and you have simply gone on chanting your invariable anti-land tax script.

You are just lying again. I have stated the fact that they are artefacts of the inherently inequitable and inefficient taxes on production and economic activity that YOU FAVOR.

You are just lying again. As land tax obligations are unaffected by either working or income, they have no effect on work incentives. This has been known for 200 years, and is not disputed by any competent economist.

I have stated that the issue only arises because you are talking about inherently harmful and unfair taxes in the first place, the kind of taxes that you favor but I oppose.

Sorry, but the modern economic "tax debate" is as irrelevant as Renaissance astronomers' disputes over the epicycles of Ptolemaic cosmology.

"In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."
&#9472;Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics and infinitely more intelligent, informed, thoughtful and honest than Reiver

A Nobel laureate in economics explicitly stated that all your anti-land tax filth is nothing but ignorant lies, Reiver. Nothing you can possibly say matters any more, because it is certain that in any disagreement between you and Milton Friedman on economic topics, you are absolutely guaranteed to be wrong and Milton Friedman right.

Content = 0. Inevitably.

Your nonsense continues to be irrelevant, as there is no reason to withdraw a benefit that consists of restoration of the equal human right to liberty through just compensation for its violation.

Whereas you will just lie.

And in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," that sort of swill passes for "content."

Disgraceful.

Unvarying repetition of your anti-land tax script noted.

No, you do not. You just want a few tweaks, a few more epicycles to divert the attention of the masses from the welfare subsidy giveaway to the wealthy, privileged landowning elite you serve and worship.

All such support will simply be taken in land rent, as the Law of Rent proves. You just have to refuse to know all such facts.

And it's "risk aversion," not "risk adversity." Try not to display your comprehensive ignorance of economics too embarrassingly.

Continued...

 

Which I propose to sweep away, and consequently have no interest in inspecting, sniffing, tasting or dissecting.

I understand it BECAUSE I am willing to know the facts that modern neoclassical economics was concocted to obscure.

More accurately, you know you have no facts, logic or arguments to offer against land rent recovery, so you go into your invariable anti-land tax script: lie, dismiss, deride, lie, denounce, ridicule, sneer, lie, dissimulate, divert attention, lie, ignore, and lie.

Only to the extent that it is innocent of fact and logic.

Your simple remark was simply a masterpiece of irrelevancy, as already explained: the nutritional content of french fries is entirely independent of the nutritional content of fresh apples, however much people might eat both. Likewise, the deleterious economic and societal effects of the taxes on production and exchange that you favor are entirely independent of the beneficial effects of land rent recovery which I favor, however much countries might currently be mired in the former and slighting the latter.

Only the objectively and provably correct parts...?

Content = 0. Inevitably.

You are just lying again. I have identified the fact that the malignant interaction between the inherently inequitable and inefficient tax and benefit systems you favor is not relevant to the benign interaction between the inherently fair and efficient tax and benefit systems I favor.

It doesn't matter how many times you demand that I confine my attention to your epicycles. They remain irrelevant.

You have uniformly ignored and dismissed them, so you can stop lying.

That's logically impossible, as empirical science studies what HAS happened, not what WILL happen.

You could start with Quesnay and Turgot, then on through Smith, Ricardo and Mill (skip Henry George if you don't want to melt like the Wicked Witch of the East), and finish off with Hudson, Gaffney, Tideman and Foldvary.

Like you, that literature ignores the Henry George Theorem, and naively assumes that benefits are retained by their initial recipients rather than ultimately being appropriated by landowners. It's therefore worthless.

No, it just makes underpayment and exploitation universal.

Nope. Wrong again. You can't protect worker property rights by taxing away the property they earn by their labor, nor by forcibly depriving them of the liberty to use that property productively, sorry.

LOL!! The neoclassical misdefinition of economic rent is fundamental to the scientific disrepute and predictive incompetence of modern mainstream economics.

<yawn> You again prove your ignorance and dishonesty. The Henry George Theorem was named FOR him, not BY him. He died several decades before it was formulated, and never knew of its existence. Your nauseating spew of ugly, dishonest shyte above therefore only reconfirms your ignorance and dishonesty.

With, as always, inane irrelevancies.

I know it shows how government spending goes to landowners, not its putative beneficiaries, a fact you must always dismiss, deny and ignore because it proves the tax and benefit systems you favor are inherently unfair and inefficient.

LOL! Congratulations, you figured out how to use Google. Now you just need to figure out that although theorems describe ideals and don't hold in the real world, they nevertheless describe the underlying relationships.

You can't understand what I said because you refuse to know the fact that the biggest hindrance to those on low incomes is their need to pay landowners for access to the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical resources nature provides.

Vacuous socialist bloviation.

 

The Post-Autistics inform us that modern economics doesn’t necessarily equal neoclassical economics. They inform us of the need to consider the wide range of political economic schools of thought. The impact can of course be substantial. Understanding the firm using a production function and hypothetical marginal costs, for example, is always going to struggle to explain how the firm evolves. Does that mean we have to listen to your old-hatted nonsense and ramble on and on about land? Of course not! That would be a quite ridiculous idea. Instead, we have to consider the institutionalist approaches and the repercussions for our understanding of the boundaries of the firm (including the neoclassical reaction which actually finds some common ground with Marx’s analysis into property rights).

That you haven’t referred to any modern tax analysis is a statement of fact. Such an analysis would of course demonstrate the backwardness of the Georgism 101. Consider, for example, how the earned income tax credit state welfare systems interact. Some would argue that this effectively generates a negative income tax far more extensive than what Friedman envisaged. I personally wouldn’t agree, focusing on the ridiculously low guaranteed level of support (typically only half way to the poverty line). However, to understand the effects of this system, involves a discussion far beyond the Georgism 101 that you’re completely reliant on. We’d first have to consider labour supply effects which arguably will be ambiguous (with a positive effect on socio-demographic groups in the lower income ranges, but with some negative effects where the credit is phased out). We’d then have to undertake some social welfare analysis that weights the gains received from each group. Not an easy proposition but required if any tax evaluation is based on knowledge rather than whinge!

That sounds spiffing. Perhaps you could reference me a key academic article that has influenced your understanding of tax effects? The Harvard referencing system will suffice!

You’ve provided no relevant reply to the failure to integrate tax and benefit systems. You’ve only used it to continue with the land tax rant, ridiculously suggesting that such integration can be reduced to ramble about an ‘individual land tax exemption’. This shows zero appreciation of the issue raised: given the multiple taxes that are needed and the various welfare benefits that are available, there are numerous non-linearities in the labour supply schedule and this significantly harms the well-being of those on low income. A mightily important issue given the US’s abundance of low wage labour.

The dishonesty within your comments is obvious. First, what I favour is irrelevant to the thread. I’ve already noted, however, that my tax solution focuses on inequalities of opportunity and the negative effects on education investments and the full exploitation of tacit knowledge through firm creation. Second, you’ve simply humphed in order to avoid modern analysis into equity and efficiency. There continues to be no mention of any modern tax analysis.

You continue to exaggerate the role of land tax. You’d only have a point if you were peddling that single tax drivel. Any reference to today’s reality of multiple taxes will necessarily lead to discussion over effective marginal rates of tax. You’ve deliberately ignored that, ensuring zero understanding of pre- and post-tax income distributions and the possibly ambiguous effects on labour supply.

By opposing the integration of tax and benefit systems you necessarily support the poverty trap. There’s no way around that. No land tax rant that will enable you to escape that simple reality.

Standard Georgism 101 tactic: give land tax quotes in order to avoid actually making economic comment. All of you do it, probably just copying and pasting from the same source. Back to my comment! i.e. The interesting aspect of Friedman’s negative income tax proposition is a level of consistent with left wing thought into the minimum income guarantee. Do you agree with that or not?

We’ve already seen your religious commitment to exaggerating the role of the land tax. I’ve been proved, unfortunately, correct.

This is a particularly low powered effort. That benefits will exist in any capitalist tax system is of course obvious. The only issue is the type adopted. Wage subsidies, for example, are typically preferred by those that want to avoid high minimum wage rates (typically justified by the inefficiency of the minimum wage as a poverty alleviation device, with welfare benefits better directed at family poverty). Clearly out-of-work benefits will always be required in order to maintain the physical efficiency of the reserve army. We therefore have to consider how those benefits are withdrawn and the constraints imposed by ‘true’ marginal tax rates

You have exaggerated the role of land tax. You have ignored that the taxes required- which without doubt will either directly or indirectly impact on the labour market- will accentuate the problems created through benefit withdrawal.

I’ve already referred to the tax system that I favour. Given its within the context of post-Hayekian market socialism, it’s obvious that I advocate a completely different system. Being dishonest about that won’t get you very far!

You’ve simply ignored my point and given the standard land tax bluff. Perhaps you didn’t understand the notion of tacit knowledge? That would amuse me as it provides a significant attack on the neoclassical approach (i.e. we shift away from the probabilistic approach to uncertainty that’s required for the mathematical assault on economics). Tacit knowledge provides a means to appreciate the role of the entrepreneur. Try to respond with something relevant!

Ooo, a spelling attack? Golly gosh, you must be struggling! Try putting ‘risk adversity’ into google!

One just knows the obvious. Georgism is certainly restricted to marginal issues such as environmentalism. In the past I’ve asked you to suggest otherwise by presenting a list of academic evidence. You of course failed to comply!

That you’ve provided nothing of value over how equity and efficiency analysis can only be understood through how taxes and benefits interact is unquestionable. When asked directly for some economic analysis that refers directly to that interaction, you’ve just whined. I’d have hoped for better avoidance tactics, but we’ve only had your standard ‘exaggerate land tax and hope they won’t notice’ low brow efforts.

It’s impossible for you to refer an empirical study into how land tax will impact on poverty and unemployment traps as such studies do not exist. Bit obvious really! Note of course how easy it is to refer to empirical studies into other taxes, typically using econometric approaches to simulate effects.

I didn’t ask for a list of names. I’ve asked for references, preferably using the Harvard system. Try to provide something published in the last decade!

We both know that your understanding of socialism is very poor. Indeed, you make the fellows on the Quorum look knowledgeable over the required political economy.

The elimination of underpayment is, by definition, protection of worker property rights. Will labour taxes exist? Of course! Equity over the provision of public goods demands it.

That economic rent doesn’t have to refer to land must indeed be strange to the one trick pony Georgist! Of course this reflects a complete ignorance of how capitalism has evolved and how that has impacted on the labour market.

And that’s interesting how? It’s just good to see you openly referring to Long Dead Henry

Note what I’ve done. Whilst asking for supporting evidence from you (which I knew you wouldn’t provide), I’ve provided some which indicates just how out-of-date you really are.

Indeed. It was nonsense, making no reference to the nature of labour supply. Referring to work incentives without referring to labour supply would be cretinous.

Analysis into the visible hand has nothing to do with socialism. It comes from the likes of Chandler and Coase after all. You again show your ‘innocence’!

 

So you would like to tax what others produce?

 

Bingo! All the "tax consumption" cretins ignore the fact that production and consumption are just two sides of the same economic coin, and you can't tax one without taxing the other except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported (the one virtue of consumption taxes is that they may allow some of the excess burden of taxation to be shifted offshore). The other fact they ignore, of course, is that consumption is the only purpose of economic activity, and to tax it therefore inherently obstructs the entire purpose of having an economy.

 

Let's have yet another go:

 

I have a point in any case, because the laws of economics have not changed in the interim.

The times have changed, not capitalism, which is still private ownership of the means of production (land and capital).

Wrong again. The "managerial class" has no mandate, no means, and no concentrated power or unified direction that would enable it to maintain exploitative relations within firm hierarchy. Exploitation of labor only arises because workers are forcibly deprived of alternatives through government-issued and -enforced rent collection privileges such as land titles, IP monopolies, private bank debt money issuance, etc. They must consequently pay the privileged for access to employment and self-employment opportunities that would otherwise be available for free. Without that deprivation of opportunities, how would exploitative management prevent workers from just leaving, hmmmm?

BWAHAHHAAAHAAAA!!

The only way you ever "deal with" reality is to lie about it, ignore it, dismiss it or call it "Georgism 101."

The servant of landowner privilege will deprecate the role of land, using that to ignore history, human rights, liberty, justice, and economic efficiency.

I state the facts and their indisputable logical implications, none of which you have ever been able to refute. Not one.

Oh, really? Who, exactly, "skewed land" to create the international land bubble and collapse that has crippled the entire world's economy over the last few years, hmmmm? Is it indeed all the fault of a tiny crew of "Georgism 101" devotees, industriously "skewing" land to fit their "petty script"....?

Your absurd, despicable and dishonest attempts to prevent your readers from learning any facts of economics are disgraceful.

Which worked so well in the USSR...

More accurately, Reiver, as a socialist, you'd consider nationalization and centralized political allocation of land by bureaucrats to politically favored state-owned enterprises and other politically connected interests. But you resist with irrational fanaticism and relentless dishonesty the recovery of publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit via market allocation to the most productive prospective users.

Right: you make no attempt whatever at logic, opting instead to bury all discussion of fact and logic under a pyroclastic spew of strawmen, supercilious sneers, lies, ignoratio elenchi fallacies, derogation, denunciation, lies, airy dismissals, misdirection, name calling, and flat-out lies.

That's only a small part of land economics. The rest of it, you blankly refuse to know.

Most of the "modern economic analysis" you are talking about is as irrelevant to real economic understanding as the elaborate theories of epicycles were to Kepler's Laws. You know you are not dealing with an honest attempt at empirical science when labor is considered to obtain rent, while landowning is not.

That capitalism's changes are irrelevant to the facts of land economics that you refuse to know, and have not changed, is also a statement of fact.

I'm embarrassed for you.

Another lie.

There is certainly evidence for such a possibility, as Prof Mason Gaffney has demonstrated. In particular, the neoclassical redefinitions of "rent" and "capital" seem tailor-made to deprive students of economics of the conceptual tools needed to understand George's arguments.

 

Again, you only show contempt for economic reality. The nature of the economy has radically changed, reflecting first industrialization and now deindustrialization. We’ve seen therefore significant changes in labour relations and a switch towards an increase in the role of innovation. To understand tax one also has to understand the impact of those structural shifts. Consider, for example, Thatcherism and its heavy reliance on using tax and benefit policy to accentuate the delivery of low wages. This can be understood within the context of trade union successes in the face of globalization, with neo-liberals ironically finding common ground with anarchist political economy.

You obviously require a horrendously stunted understanding of capitalism in order to maintain the land tax exaggeration. Back in the land of reality, it’s clear that capitalism has significantly changed. In terms of a heterodox approach, we'd start with an economic history reference to how the "capitalist" has changed. We first have 'classical capitalism' where we have concentrated private property and labour relations are characterised by the bourgeoisie buying control of the proletariat in exchange for a wage. Whilst we have changes provoked by the diffusion of financial wealth, the definition continues to refer to the capital accumulation process, i.e. quoting Screpanti (1999, Capitalist forms and the essence of capitalism, Review of International Political Economy) capitalists are "the material subjects of capital accumulation" and are the "functionaries of capital". The interesting aspect, as you’ve already been informed, is that this heterodox approach also exhibits a level of consistency with new institutionalism (i.e. the analysis of firm behaviour who, subject to transaction costs, provides an understanding of the boundaries of the firm and how market concentration often develops). All issues beyond your land tax exaggeration which, without doubt, makes the Georgism 101 rant unable to understand economic outcome.

You remind me of a Trotskyite child who bulldozes along without any consideration for sound economic comment. The rise of the managerial class, within the context of firm hierarchy, is crucial for our understanding of economic outcome. In terms of the orthodox, for example, we have an appreciation of how first mover advantages are achieved. Rather than being related to innovation advancements (often within a creative destruction outlook), we get gains that significantly change our understanding of the ‘long run’ (see, for example, Chandler’s case study analysis of firms from the 2nd industrial revolution). In terms of labour theory, we have the likes of internal labour markets that help us explain multiple phenomena: from the continuation of inefficient discrimination (despite the ‘taste for discrimination’ analysis from Becker that ultimately suggests, through the profit motive, discrimination will be driven out) to the means to avoid efficiency wage payments.

Exaggerating land tax whilst ignoring economic reality neatly summarises the irrelevance of Georgism 101.

Those interested in economic reality will note the Georgist land rants for what they are.

The current crisis reflects the hegemony of the financial class, a profiteering result from neo-liberalism which creates opportunities through greater instability. It isn’t surprising that marginal schools have tried to use it to try and peddle their snake oil. Unfortunately for you, Georgism 101 has- not surprisingly- been left behind. Austrian economics, for example, has ably utilized it mobilize the gullible amongst the right. Despite being terribly backward (with no coherent theory of the firm and an understanding of labour that makes neoclassical theory look advanced), they make the land tax ranting look child-like.

Given my stance is based on economic analysis, I’m not surprised that you have been forced to reply with low powered rant. You cannot, for example, provide any critique of the importance of the tragedy of the anti-commons. We have a simple result: reference to land without Long Dead George.

It’s not cunning to try and understand economic outcome within the context of an out-dated view of capitalism. It would be on a par with a neoclassical model that assumes perfect competition in the context of the Penrosian firm.

And that’s one of the saddest aspects of internet Georgists. They’re really just conspiracy theorists!

 

Sales tax is regressive, meaning it taxes the poor at a higher rate than the rich. If the people with less money to spend on necessities get more of their money taken away in taxes, how is that fair?

Personally, I think income tax should be the only tax. The effects of corporate tax and sales tax are unpredictable. Depending on the demand for the product, it will result in either the company having to eat the tax, or the tax being passed off to the consumers. This applies to tariffs as well, but sin taxes are purely regressive.

With a progressive income tax scale, you have a lot more control over where the taxes go. So you can avoid over-taxing the lower class. Closing up just the tax loopholes and treating all income as equal will result in a significant increase in revenue.

 

ROTFL!! You are obviously projecting. I am the one identifying economic reality.

Incoherent socialist blather deleted.

More incoherent socialist blather deleted.

<yawn> Hong Kong is an economic outcome that is impossible under your theory, but inevitable under mine. That proves me right and relevant, and proves you wrong and irrelevant.

That's odd. You remind me of an ignorant, lying sack of $#!+.

Blah, blah, blah...

Yet more incoherent socialist blather deleted.

Hong Kong is economic reality. It proves me right and land rent recovery relevant, and proves you wrong and your incoherent socialist blather irrelevant. Period.

Indeed, and they will also note your relentlessly dishonest evasions and attempts to prevent discussion of land rent recovery for what they are.

That is just more incoherent socialist blather.

<yawn> Which I suppose explains why Georgist economists like Fred Foldvary were able to predict the GFC to the year, years before it happened, while all but a handful of your "modern" economists were taken completely by surprise.

Your stance is based on evading economic analysis.

?? It's not particularly relevant, and you appear not even to know what it is. It mainly refers to an excess of overlapping property rights that prevent productive use of a resource, and is used mainly in analysis of the failures of patent law, not land use.

ROTFL!!!

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

You just made a prize fool of yourself again, Reiver. Look at the Wikipedia article on the Tragedy of the Anticommons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons

Now look down to the See Also section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons#See_also

Yep. There it is: right in the Wikipedia article on the tragedy of the anticommons, A DIRECT REFERENCE TO GEORGISM.

See? You are destroyed. Nothing you can possibly say matters any more, because you have been proved a lying ignoramus.

?? How horrid it must be to be you.

 

Again you hide from economic content! That hiding reflects a need to hide from political economy, ensuring the Georgist ranting isn’t challenged. Note what I referred to: a consistency in thought between the autonomists and the neo-liberals who crafted Thatcherism’s labour policies. You of course cannot challenge anything of what I’ve typed.

Just more evidence that you cannot respond to economic comment. Note again that, despite using heterodox analysis, I referred to common ground with Marxist analysis and the orthodoxy of new institutionalism. Again, we see how- by understanding how capitalism has changed- important linkages between political economy schools of thought develop. This is all ignored by the internet Georgist motivated only by ignoring economic reality in order to peddle the land tax prance.

This doesn’t make any sense. Try again! “My theory”, which really should be ‘my approach’, is based on using multiple political economic schools to understand economic outcome. In contrast, you merely rant about land.

Tut tut a classless personal attack that only shows your inability to objectively respond to the economic analysis being utilized.

Again, you show an inability to respond to anything that refers to economic analysis. Note of course that the analysis was not socialist. It would be ludicrous, for example, to refer to Chandler or a Chicago economist such as Becker as socialist. In addition, the concept of internal labour markets is but an appreciation of the consequences of hierarchy for firm organization. It is obvious, for example, that such human resource management methods are key for minimizing the costs from labour turnover. The approach, as already mentioned, is key for explaining key empirical phenomena; phenomena which can only be understood if one is a grown up about how capitalism has changed since the days of Long Dead George.

No it proves that you have to refer to ludicrously specific examples, typically ignoring all of the structural issues involved, to maintain a ludicrous Georgism 101 stance.

A mere understanding of how the current crisis developed. By ignoring the costs from neo-liberalism you again demonstrate a complete innocence over how (typically ‘Anglo-Saxon’) capitalist economies have developed.

Note that I’ve already asked you to provide a reference (using the Harvard system) of a peer reviewed published article that support your Georgist ranting. You’ve provided none. You can put that right now!

I appreciate you’ve sparked up your Wikipedia in order to try and respond. Note that I referred to adapting the tragedy of the anti-commons. It certainly is important for land usage, but here within the context of standard market failure and the inability to achieve utility maximization.

First, it’s a shame that you’re so completely reliant on Wikipedia. Second, you are again being dishonest. There is no need to refer to Georgism with the notion of the anti-commons. It can, for example, be easily embedded within a neoclassical context. As mentioned earlier, your ludicrous claims are on a par with stating that any counter-cyclical expenditure must necessarily be Keynesian. Land is an important factor of production. It’s going to be key in any school of thought (although labour is the critical one if you want to understand the evolution in capitalism that you so determinedly ignore!). But referring to land doesn’t translate into Georgism 101. It doesn’t mean one has to exaggerate land tax and rely completely on non-economic ranting to try and hide the knowledge deficiencies!

It certainly would have been more satisfying if you actually knew some economics. However, let’s be optimistic, the conspiracy theorist Georgist could still be educated!

 

Try #3:

Seeing as how you claim to not advocate central planning, answering in the "negatory" should be simple enough. I wonder why you evade? Hmmm.... It's almost as if, when we get right down to brass tacks, you advocate a sort of central planning to allocate resources, but refuse to say so.

 

You're merely trying to derail a thread (a thread where your guru is being showing up bad time). Start a thread on market socialism if you want to talk about it (Note: of course one can start a SME and employ a workforce in post-Hayekian market socialism. Exploiting the gains from tacit knowledge is vital for work well-being). Last reply to you unless you can show some basic manners and ask questions relevant to the thread

 

No, that is just another stupid lie from you. YOU are the one who has been trying to derail this thread since post #5, and even more blatantly since post #21 in which you falsely, gratuitously and dishonestly accused me of following a "script" and "dishonest techniques," when any reader can verify that it is YOU who have been relentlessly following a script and engaging in dishonest techniques, not I.

LOL! No, you just can't help proving you have nothing to contribute. You have offered no content, and have not refuted a single sentence I have written. Not one.

Why don't you answer his question? And if you don't think it is germane to this thread, why don't you offer some alternative to the "Fair"Tax instead of continuing your attempt to derail the thread by chanting your anti-land tax script? Oh, and to offer an alternative you would need to specify WHAT should be taxed and HOW, not just describe a desired result of a tax system.

??? THIS, from YOU??!!???

ROTFL!!!

 

Don't pretend I haven't asked such in ideal conditions. You simply won't answer. You're a died-in-the-wool central planner who pretends he's above the fray. Your dishonesty is simply unparalleled.

Originally, I asked you to flesh out your position vis-a-vis the notion that at least a land tax would be a step in your general direction. You concluded that the land tax was bad, and refused, as you refuse now, to flesh out your position. Still today, it's impossible for anyone reading your posts to have any comprehensive idea as to just what sort of position you advocate. That says much about your position, IMO.

Edit:

By the way, is what it'll take to get you to flesh out your position is me starting a new thread? I've asked such from you on numerous occasions (at least 5 times, by my recollection). I find it hard to believe, given your behavior, that you simply refuse to sidetrack another topic, and that a topic dedicated to your specific views is in order. Why haven't you started such a thread, if that's the case? I've requested you to elaborate on your position many times, yet I'm still at a loss; if you truly wish to make yourself clear, but refuse to sidetrack the discussion, I suggest you start a thread yourself.

 

I therefore invite, nay, entreat you not to listen (you never have in any case), and most especially, if you are not going to listen, not to pretend your anti-land tax script is a response to anything I have written.

No, we don't.

Lie. See, e.g., Oates, Wallace, and Robert Schwab. "The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience." National Tax Journal 50 (March 1997): 1-21.

 

You again try dishonest tactic. My comment referred to an appropriate attack on neoclassical economics, making no immature reference to conspiracy theory. Understanding the significant changes in the nature of capitalism- something which you have deliberately ignored in order to maintain your land rant- is integral for understanding economic result. We cannot refer to the production function and the hypothetical marginal cost curve to understand how the capitalist firm has evolved. That requires institutionalism and, whilst it’s often ignored out of convenience, that delivers a level of consistency between orthodox and heterodox thought. We therefore have a grand aim of the post-autistic approach: a return to political economy that, in the pursuit of a better understanding of economic outcome, celebrates the interdependence in the evolution of the political economic schools of thought. Unfortunately for the internet Georgist, given their one dimensional land rant, that will also ensure that they are becoming even more old-hatted. Even the Austrians, for example, recognize the problems created by a lack of coherent theory of the firm.

More dishonesty! I’ve referred to the need for modern tax analysis that considers, for example, the interaction of preferred welfare systems and tax effects. You’ve of course ignored all of that, given you have no means to understand labour outcome, and given a terribly specific paper that merely assesses the effects of a land tax. Even then there’s little of interest. For example, the paper’s case study is an area experiencing a commercial sector building boom. It has to resort to reviewing the economic conditions behind this boom (e.g. vacancy rates) and provide opinion over the extent that investment decisions reflected excess demand criteria. And of course, the land tax analysis is easily embedded within a neoclassical context.

That you dodge from a simple question, provide a reference to an academic article that has influenced your understanding of tax effects, is revealing in itself. As shown by your earlier attempt, it will just further advertise the weaknesses in your approach (reflecting unfortunately poor reading, encouraged by ideological limitation)

Try to respond to the quotes. You have indeed given your standard script over the Fair Tax. You haven’t, however, provided any relevant reply to the failure to integrate tax and benefit systems.

A Georgist simple tax is a cretinous notion, with no relevance to the practicalities of capitalism and the need for multiple taxation. However, given you’ve denied being a Georgist, it jolly decent of you to fall foul of Georgism 101 so openly. There’s a form of honesty in that at least!

We’ve only seen a Georgist tantrum, giving the usual land tax exaggeration in order to avoid the reality of multiple taxes within capitalism. That you have then ignored the consequences of what happens in capitalism (such as the non-linearities in the labour supply schedule and this significantly harms the well-being of those on low income) is just a matter of fact. The obsession with land has produced two effects. First, a complete disregard for the nature of capitalism. Second, a complete disregard of economic analysis into the taxes that- by definition- are required in capitalism.

Actually I’ve gone further! Within capitalism, I’ve referred to an updating of the negative income tax with the consideration of the minimum income guarantee. However, I have also acknowledged the innate inefficiency of capitalism (accentuated by the evolution of the firm, with hierarchical practices enabled by the broadening of the boundaries of the firm) and how that negatively impacts on the exploitation of tacit knowledge. I’ve also therefore referred to tax demands within a market socialist context.

We’ve already seen that, when pushed, you’ll rant about the Georgist single tax. You’ve allowed your ideological splurge to ignore the practicalities of capitalism. That multiple taxes and benefits will continue to exist in capitalism is a matter of fact. That you have nothing to say about the effective marginal rates of tax then reflects the consequences of the ideological splurge: a complete innocence of possible tax solutions and their interaction with welfare payments.

This is either dishonest or you actually are completely innocent of what integration of tax and benefit systems involves. Given the basic economic errors that you continue to make, I cannot reject the latter. Let’s therefore investigate it further. If you were referring to integration of tax and benefit systems you would be able to provide a simulation of how post-tax income changes as someone moves from unemployment to low wage labour with variable labour supply.

An amusing claim given you continue to dodge every economic comment given! Here, you’re again being dishonest. Your land rant has indeed led, perhaps without you knowing it, to opposition to the integration of tax and benefit systems. That ensures tacit support for the poverty trap.

Nothing of note; only that you’re bland in the internet Georgism. Using it to ignore economic comment (here the perceived value of a negative income tax proposal) is standard practice.

Friedman is ‘leftish’? Once we do break through the Georgist script, you do make particularly amusing claims

Your religious commitment to the exaggeration of the role of the land tax cannot be questioned. One just has to peruse your posts and also how you’re so desperate to ignore any economic comment that, within a land tax cult context, ‘evilly’ doesn’t mention land!

That involuntary unemployment is the norm is easily demonstrated. Testing the origins of that result is a straight-forward proposition. The assumptions of the shirking model (as used in efficiency wage analysis in both neoclassical and Marxist labour analysis) are, for example, confirmed in Ewing and Payne, 1999, The trade-off between supervision and wages: Evidence of efficiency wages from the NLSY, Southern Economic Journal, 66). That out-of-work benefits provide a means to maintain the physical efficiency of the unemployed is obvious! It doesn’t surprise me to see you denying the bleedin obvious.

Earlier you tried to hide your Georgist nature. Now its in full ugly display, demonstrating a level of utopianism that is reliant on our economies being in the 19th century!

I’ve referred to the key factor: support of tacit knowledge by reducing the problems created through inequalities of opportunity. Whilst in capitalism tax ultimately reflects the demands imposed on government by its stabilization role, in market socialism the important feature is entrepreneurship.

It was an attempt at going for a ‘spelling error’ grunt. A fool-hardy one though, given my vocab is accepted use.

You cannot present a list of academic evidence as that would show the marginal nature of Georgism. It would demonstrate the irrelevance of your land tax rant.

Which actually confirms the validity of my earlier comment! See, for example, the papers reference to the ‘rights to pollute’. See also where the paper has been cited: analysis into flooding.

You’d only have a point if we had a ridiculous hypothetical world where a single tax can be coupled with zero welfare payment. You’re only demonstrating just how silly the internet Georgists really are, often making the wannabe Austrians look adventurous in the ‘grabbing a slice of reality’ stakes.

Come now, provide complete references. Try and give something published in the last 5 years. That might force you to actually do some reading!

This is ignorant. Theft has already occurred. We’re referring to an economic rent created through underpayment.

You’ve simply demonstrated that you do not understand public goods!

I’m laughing!

I’m laughing even more heartily now! We have to refer to labour supply as we are typically referring to marginal changes in working hours. We also have to refer to labour supply as the shift from working to non-working is understood as a corner solution within the labour supply model.

 

You are lying. You have offered no relevant economic content, only ignoratio elenchi fallacies.

It is you who are "hiding," in plain sight, and you know it, and so does everyone reading this. You can't challenge or even respond coherently to anything I have said, so you hide behind your unvarying script of anti-land tax sneers.

There is no need to challenge such ignoratio elenchi fallacies, as they are already fallacious.

No, I simply choose not to help you derail the thread with your unvarying anti-land tax script.

Blah, blah, blah...

ROTFL! It is YOU who are ignoring economic reality, dumpling. Economic reality is the GFC, strictly caused by declining land taxation: the four US states that have been worst hit by the land bubble and crash -- CA, FL, NV and AZ -- all had low and declining property tax rates. Only in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind" is heeding the warning of the net present value equation "ignoring economic reality."

No, you just spew irrelevancies in order to evade economic content.

Lie.

You haven't utilized any economic analysis, and you won't.

Blah, blah, blah...

Your unvarying script of anti-land tax sneers is not a response.

You asked for factual evidence, I provided it, so you have to dismiss it without responding to it. Simple. It's never any different with you.

[Stupid socialist $#!+storm deleted]

I have provided peer-reviewed references, and you know it. You have dismissed and ignored them without even attempting to respond. Pathetic.

More accurately, it's a shame that even Wikipedia shows what a lying ignoramus you are. Sad, really.

The pot calling the porcelain black.

Blah, blah, blah...

 

Actually you’ve hid from the economic content twice now! I’m not surprised by it as, to provide any coherent rebuke to my comment, you’d have to embrace political economy and shift away from the land rant. You’d have to refer to how, as conditions in capitalism have changed (such as the agreement between the autonomists and the Thatcherites over the repercussions of successes amongst the labour movement), this has impacted on tax and benefit system.

You don’t choose. You cannot respond to the comments as the Georgist script doesn’t allow for it. We’ve seen you make particularly silly comments over some perceived stagnancy in the nature of capitalism. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re not aware of the radical changes in firm organization and the consequences for labour. If you bothered with economics, you’d get an appreciation of how greater economic rents are generated and how, within capitalism, the interaction of taxes and low wage support becomes even more important.

My ability to refer to economic analysis, whilst mentioning the obvious (such as the stupidity of exaggerating the role of the land tax), will ensure that you respond with one liners designed only to try and inflame. It won’t wash. I will continue to demonstrate that your position is based on non-economic rant.

You gave the ludicrously specific example as a response to: ”All issues beyond your land tax exaggeration which, without doubt, makes the Georgism 101 rant unable to understand economic outcome”. That original comment referred to an understanding of how capitalism has changed and how the subsequent theory of the firm finds common ground between orthodox and heterodox schools. Its only through understanding the firm and the labour market that you will understand economic outcome in capitalism. Its only with that understanding that you can make any high-powered evaluation of tax effects. All ignored by Georgism 101 ranting!

More dishonesty! I’ve asked you to provide a reference (using the Harvard system) of a peer reviewed published article that supports your Georgist ranting. Other than the article that confirms that Georgism slithers to marginal issues over environmentalism, you have provided a low powered source that focuses mainly on a regional commercial sector building boom. If you believe that’s sufficient I will again have to laugh.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure I agree with you that the basis of capitalism has shifted, though perhaps labor relations have changed somewhat, and benefits for labor have certainly increased. I think most of the changes there are changes in government, however. Historically, this has mainly been a change in how the upper class structures how poor and middle class taxes are distributed. It's not terribly relevant to a land tax discussion because that represents a fundamental change from the existing system anyway.

Saying that the land tax arguments (which seem at least credible enough to confront on their own merits) are irrelevant because systems of income tax and government benefits have changed since their original proposal is rather silly. The basis of a land tax proposal is pretty much the same now as it was back, and the arguments in favor of a land tax remain mostly unchanged. What might have changed are arguments made by land tax proponents against alternatives, because the alternatives have changed in the subsequent centuries. Trying to dismiss land tax proponents by observing that income taxes and the role of government have changed over time is an example of a non-sequitur.

But... aren't you doing the same thing? You refuse to make comments relevant to the "Georgist script", and refuse to counter the proposals directly (and instead focus on nitpicking the 'Georgist' assault on tax alternatives). Moreover, you have also made many rather silly attacks on aspects of capitalism.

You keep saying this is important, but you won't talk about specifics that feature it as an important consideration in the comparison of land and income/consumption taxes.

 

You'll find it difficult to find a political economist that agrees with you.

The role of government has changed because capitalism has changed. The partial replacement of the invisible hand with the visible hand has also led to changes in market concentration, with that leading to increased risks of macroeconomic crisis.

Land tax discussion is typically restricted to environmentalism issues. The changes in the economy have increased the importance of other factors of production. Consider, for example, the Anglo-Saxon countries. Here, we have economies which are stable despite greater income inequalities. We also have labour market flexibility which has led to an increased need for in-work benefits. Tax analysis must refer to how those benefits change as income increases.

Focusing on land tax, providing an out-dated Georgist approach originating from the folly of a single tax, is rather silly. Embedding land arguments within the practicalities of tax systems isn't.

A land tax proposal that ignores how capitalism has changed is just ideological rant.

I'm prepared to refer to any school of political economic thought. Indeed, my previous comments have referred to the common themes in schools that are- in terms of overall conclusions- wildly divergent. I don't refer to Georgism as, whilst it has some uses in rather specific analysis, its a particularly marginal school with very little modern day application (as shown, for example, in the types of articles being published in the field). I summarised it before...

To first highlight its marginal nature, I'd refer to Sullivan (2003, Why the Georgist Movement Has Not Succeeded, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, Vol 62, pp. 607-623). This makes the realistic comment:

"A factor in the decline of Georgism in the 20th century may have been the failure of Single Taxers and Georgists (with of course a few exceptions) to recast the philosophy of the master—and its politicoesthetic style (the way it is presented to the world)—and develop it into a critical analysis of modern and post-modern social issues."

Samuels writes in the same issue of the journal:

”While Georgist ideas have influenced policies around the world, the level of success, compared to what one might have expected, has been so miniscule as to border on, if not constitute, failure"

Its only through sub-issues, such as environmental economics (given the focus on land as a distinct factor of production) that they can find any relevance.

This might be interesting. Name them!

We actually have one aspect of the substantial change in the nature of capitalism. We have significant changes in the make-up of the economy (with the boundaries of the firm further relaxed, such that pricing policy can ensure supply-side shocks have dramatic effects such as crisis through stagflation) and an impact on the wage distribution (such as reductions in wage mobility and an increased need for welfare policy)

 

You again lie.

Scripted evasion of all facts of land economics deleted.

More lies.

And I have offered an alternative superior to the "preferred" welfare systems, and you have run away from it.

OTC, by refusing to know the Law of Rent, you guarantee you can never understand labor outcome.

Which would be what you asked me to cite, lying ignoramus.

My God, you are an utterly dishonest waste of electricity.

Scripted evasion of all facts of land economics deleted.

?? I provided the reference. You are just flat-out lying, as usual.

Lie.

Scripted evasion of all facts of land economics deleted.

A cretinous lie, as already proved.

Please either provide the definition of capitalism, with verifiable citation, that identifies the taxes you claim are required in capitalism by definition, or admit that you are a lying sack of $#!+. Failure to do the first will constitute doing the second.

So you propose indiscriminate taxation of wage, interest, and rent incomes, without regard for the fact that wages measure their recipient's contribution to the wealth of the community, while rent measures the community's contribution to the wealth of their recipient?

LOL! And you imagine this cretinously ham-fisted approach to be the acme of "modern" economic sophistication! ROTFL!!

Scripted evasion of all facts of land economics deleted.

No, that's just another stupid lie from you, as you know I do not propose to tax income, nor do I propose different tax liabilities for unemployed and low-wage workers.

<yawn> Soot calling porcelain "black" again...

Already conclusively disproved.

His negative income tax proposal is indisputably more egalitarian -- and therefore leftish -- than current tax and benefit systems. That's just a fact.

Scripted evasion of all facts of land economics deleted.

A means. Not the only possible means, as you claimed.

Scripted evasion of all facts of land economics deleted.

Lie. You proved your ignorance.

You demanded peer-reviewed academic references, and I supplied them. Now, proving yourself infinitely dishonest, you are demanding I provide a "list" of academic references before you will deign to consider facts of economics "relevant."

I think I will just let you evade.

No, it proves you lied. Again.

That has in fact been done, in Kiaochow, so we in fact do live in such a world, a fact that you will now lie about, dismiss, evade and ignore.

"Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth," A-R J Turgot, 1774
"The Wealth of Nations," A Smith, 1776
"Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," D Ricardo, 1817

That should be enough to get you started.

??? So now reading anything published more than five years ago somehow doesn't count as reading??

My God, you are a disgusting, despicable, dishonest piece of work. How horrid it must be to be you, or even to know you.

No theft has occurred; you are just fabricating an imaginary underpayment in order to evade facts about real economic rent.

I'm not, as I do not propose to tax the wages of, or withdraw benefits from, those who contribute to the wealth of the community by working.

 

You again try low brow attempt at avoiding comment. I won’t be tolerating that. I said (and try to respond!):

My comment referred to an appropriate attack on neoclassical economics, making no immature reference to conspiracy theory. Understanding the significant changes in the nature of capitalism- something which you have deliberately ignored in order to maintain your land rant- is integral for understanding economic result. We cannot refer to the production function and the hypothetical marginal cost curve to understand how the capitalist firm has evolved. That requires institutionalism and, whilst it’s often ignored out of convenience, that delivers a level of consistency between orthodox and heterodox thought. We therefore have a grand aim of the post-autistic approach: a return to political economy that, in the pursuit of a better understanding of economic outcome, celebrates the interdependence in the evolution of the political economic schools of thought. Unfortunately for the internet Georgist, given their one dimensional land rant, that will also ensure that they are becoming even more old-hatted. Even the Austrians, for example, recognize the problems created by a lack of coherent theory of the firm.

Your dishonesty amuses me. You, as you well know it, have referred to out-of-date prance (poorly put together at that). You have made no reference to welfare systems or the reality of capitalist tax strategies, relying purely on the inane Georgist nonsense

Unlike you I’ve bothered to keep up to date with economic analysis. To understand labour outcome we of course also have to understand the theory of the firm. You haven’t a clue with that as you are purely reliant on Long Dead George.

Unlike you I bother to peruse the papers that I reference. As I said and you can’t deny, the paper’s case study is an area experiencing a commercial sector building boom. It has to resort to reviewing the economic conditions behind this boom (e.g. vacancy rates) and provide opinion over the extent that investment decisions reflected excess demand criteria. I’m sorry that you’re not able to support your position better.

You’ve provided inanity that only makes your position look desperately weak. I asked for a reference to an academic article that has influenced your understanding of tax effects. Provide it! Try to find one that supports your position, rather than advertising the Georgism 101 limitation that you unfortunately rely on in every comment.

A silly response as we both know that you can’t provide a relevant reply over the failure to integrate tax and benefit systems. Land economics (with you though land rant) cannot provide an answer.

Could you find me one political economist that agrees with your “nature of "modern" capitalism is the same nature capitalism had 100 years ago, or 200 or 300” comment? Will it be the fellow that said neoclassical economics was a conspiracy against your hero?

Already achieved!

Also achieved! For example, I’ve referred directly to the importance of the reserve army. You might not have noticed though as it involved economics!

Already said! Integration of tax and benefit systems. You hide from economic reality to peddle your out-dated ideological rant. You can’t seem to get pass that. A shame but understandable. Its your only angle.