out of the box thought on taxes

Bingo!

 

Geez.

In which case the least efficient producers will cease to exist shrinking supply and causing prices to rise in the face of constant demand.

All independent of any taxing policy.

 

"The price of a commodity is set by supply and demand. It is not at all influenced by the amount of property taxes a company may or may not pay."

"False. When real estate improvements are taxed, it discourages investment in them, leading to reduced production AND THUS REDUCED SUPPLY AND HIGHER PRICE of the goods and services that would have been produced using those improvements. Colbert, Louis XIV's finance minister, deindustrialized France in the 17th and 18th C by taxing capital goods, including factory buildings and fixed equipment"

and thus you demonstrate your ignorance of basic economics and further demonstrate your inability to provide usable input to the conversation.

Look at the words you use.

They are not the words of a person making an intellectual argument but the words of the religious fanatic.

"With Fouquet dismissed, Colbert reduced the national debt through more efficient taxation. The principal taxes included the aides and douanes (both customs duties), the gabelle (a tax on salt), and the taille (a tax on land). Louis and Colbert also had wide-ranging plans to bolster French commerce and trade. Colbert's mercantilist administration established new industries and encouraged manufacturers and inventors, such as the Lyon silk manufacturers and the Gobelins manufactory, a producer of tapestries. He invited manufacturers and artisans from all over Europe to France, such as Murano glassmakers, Swedish ironworkers, and Dutch shipbuilders. In this way, he aimed to decrease foreign imports while increasing French exports, hence reducing the net outflow of precious metals from France."

 

As it should be. Any company which cannot make a profit because costs are too high should go out of business. And yes, as demand increases more is produced or prices are increased to compensate. I suspect I did not say it well in the post to which you responded. Effectively I was only saying that ALL costs of production and distribution must be recovered plus profit. Sorry about that, my bad!

 

Taxes (like tariffs and property taxes) built into the cost of production decrease the efficiency of the producer.

If we impose the tariff then they impose the tariff we have decreased the efficiencies of all producers.

 

Hypothetically, what objection can there be to Taxing only artificial Persons of wealth whenever our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates.

 

If we tax only "artificial " persons (I presume you mean only corporations) the big losers would be American labor, because most labor is sufficiently mobile to leave the US which could/would create monumental unemployment. The only tax payers should be real people and the tax should be charged based on their personal income in a progressive manner. Considering the only purpose for taxation is to facilitate the operations of government from cities, states to the federal government, the single tax system would not raise enough revenue. LVT's only usefulness is at the local/state level but even that is not as reasonable as property taxes which cover the land AND the improvements.

BTW, please explain your "wartime tax rate" comment.

 

Huh? No. What are you even talking about? I am asking you why, if under LVT producers would just move to cheaper land, they do not just move to cheaper land now.

<crickets>

The crickets are what we hear in the silence of your non-response.

Wrong. Any shift from destructive taxes to LVT will help.

That is a lie. I directly responded to the OP, and you know it.

No, that is only a figment of anti-LVT ninnies' imaginations. I've never heard of such a thing. Can you provide any evidence that such a system has ever been implemented, or even seriously proposed?

You know that is false, because you know that land value does not include improvement value.

I.e., value created by the community, not the landowner. Right.

Nope. The exact opposite is the case. Because those who hold the best locations will have to pay such high taxes in order to continue to hold them, they will use them to the maximum efficient productivity, eliminating vacant urban lots, increasing density of development in the city center, and making urban development more compact. The truth is the exact, diametric opposite of your claim, because you know nothing of business or economics.

LOL! It's OK: I understand it incomparably better than you.

 

I am not sure I understand your line of reasoning regarding real Persons in our republic not being burdened with an Income tax whenever our federal Congress cannot justify wartime Taxes.

Why would we be worse off if only artificial and juridical Persons of wealth are required to play shell games with Statism, simply because they can afford to hire entire departments to do so and claim it is a form of job creation, whenever our federal Congress cannot justify wartime Tax rates.

 

I will discuss it with you when you tell me what wartime Tax rates are.

 

I'm a former landlord and ALL of the Property Tax was passed onto the tenant as a component of the rent.

 

I'm pretty sure you're just making a correlation and causation mistake right now. You didn't pass on the tax on the land value portion of your property. You just charged tenants for the rising land value like all decent landlords do. Higher land values obviously correlate with more taxes paid on land value regardless of the exact rate (unless the rate was 0), but that's not what allowed you to charge higher rents.

 

I still own rental property and I always pass on ALL property tax to the tenant. No business man will ever not pass the costs/values of his property to the tenant. That is including a piece of I own and not only are the taxes passed on, but the tenant did all of the improvements at his own expense. It is effectively a Net Rent situation.

In addition, all of his taxes are passed on to his consumers such that effectively the consumer pays all the taxes but the individual income taxes of the workers and owners.

 

I am also a former landlord, and NO IT WASN'T. The property tax you thought you were passing on simply reduced the rent the tenant was willing to pay. It's not rocket science. Say the property tax is $100/month and the market rent is $1000/month. You can charge $1000/month and pay the property tax, or $900/month and have the tenant pay it. He's not going to pay $1000+$100/month, because the market rent is only $1000. He'll just go elsewhere.

 

No, you don't. You simply accept less rent in return for the tenant paying the equivalent amount of property tax.

He can CHARGE FOR value, because that is what the market supports. He CANNOT charge for his costs, because they do not affect demand except insofar as they increase value. As property tax does not increase value, its cost cannot be passed on.

So you are aware that your function as landowner is that of a pure parasite, and that is why you are willing to say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing that fact.

Right: any property tax he shouders just comes out of the rent he is willing to pay.

And you claim to have taught tax incidence at a university! ROTFL!!

 

<yawn> Non-contributory content noted

No, they are the objectively correct words one must use to describe the situation accurately.

No one said Colbert wasn't good at levying taxes.

The problem was that the capital tax (and private road tolls, and other economically harmful taxes and policies) contradicted all those grandiose plans to increase manufacturing, and so France had already fallen behind England in industrialization decades before the Revolution.

 

No, zoning only makes some land worth more and other land worth less than the owner expected to be given. Giving someone $500 instead of the $1000 gift they were expecting is not taking anything away from them. It is just giving them less than they assumed they would be given.

Nonsensical.

Even more nonsensical.

 

Roy L's Law: Any sufficiently uncompromising defense of liberty, justice and truth will be deleted by a mod as "flamebait."

 

You rent out land without even improvements on it AND YET you deny that landowners get money for doing nothing. Unbelievable. You didn't put the land there. You didn't pay anybody to put the land there. Your father, grandfather, and great grandfather didn't put the land there. You just put yourself in a position so that you can hinder productive use of land unless somebody pays you for doing nothing. This literally explains every single post you've made in this thread.

 

As stated.

Ignorance of basic economics.

from there any argument you attempt to make is flawed.

 

It creates a floor, not a ceiling.

 

If you buy land next to adjacent property that was supposed to remain residential but they turn into a landfill site, have they not taken from you? Have you ever seems a politician make these changes by their house? Since they live in the district and any placement away from their house protects them, shouldnt they recuse themselves, since they have a strong incentive to place the landfill away from their homes?

If not, can they do the opposite? Use their power to increase the value of land they hold? Because that is against the law nearly everywhere because of the usual corruption among politicians.

 

Better still, let the tenant pay you $1,000 AND the $100 tax like I did. The market rent is what people who own property want to charge and we all wanted to pass on the tax.

 

Wrong! I make him pay market rent plus the tax, in every case. Only a fool pays his own land/property tax when he rents his land/property.

If he can not pass on his costs he will lose money and every business I know passes every penny of land/property tax on to his customers.

I don't believe landowners are parasites, I let fools think that and let them lose the money.

Wrong, I got the net rent I wanted and as a net renter he has to pay all costs. In years gone by in Louisiana where the land is the tenant also had to pay to price for the city to pave the road and he didn't get but one vote as to if the road were to be paved.

I did, economics which includes tax incidence, and I know the facts and so far you have been facts challenged.

- - - Updated - - -

What, when, where, who? Someone got a post deleted?

 

Nope, I BOUGHT THE LAND and put it to good use. I leased it in a net lease to a Burger King who opened a restaurant in one of the busiest thourough fares in Lafayette.