Wealth Tax >>>MOD WARNING<<<

Wealth tax is an idiotic idea. Let's say you have a fixed wealth. Every year you would have to get rid of something to pay the tax. Every year you would be worth less and less.

 

So, let's get this straight, you don't think an OAP who owns their house should pay higher tax? Getting you to be clear is near impossible!

 

It is actually a much better idea than income tax, sales tax, VAT, etc.

Right, assuming you weren't earning any money. The wealth tax therefore encourages you to INVEST YOUR WEALTH PRODUCTIVELY so that it is NOT fixed. Only if the tax exceeds the typical return to productive investment would it become counter-productive.

GET IT???

 

What if your wealth is land like farm land? We already have a wealth tax called inheritance tax where people have to sell off property to pay it,

 

I think they should pay a higher tax than an OAP who is in the exact same situation, but renting the house.

Now let's get THIS straight:

Are you claiming that an OAP who owns their house mortgage-free does not have greater ability to pay taxes than an OAP who is in exactly the same situation but is renting the house?

YES OR NO.

No. I am very clear. You just have to pretend I have said something other than what I plainly have said.

Now answer the question.

 

Not true! Take something as simple as negative externalities. A sales tax revenue raises whilst also reducing the deadweight loss associated with the market failure

- - - Updated - - -

So, given they have no income, you would either force them to rent out their spare bedroom or to sell their abode?

 

Use it productively enough to pay the tax, or yield it to someone who will.

Inheritance tax is not a wealth tax, and I don't see how less productive people selling off property to more productive ones is a tragedy.

 

You haven't factored any economic sense! For example, selling off land is likely to magnify tragedy of the anti-commons problems

 

So, no one should ever sell any land?

Talk about lacking economic sense....

And ANSWER THE QUESTION:

Are you stating that an OAP who owns their home mortgage-free does not have greater ability to pay than one who is in exactly the same situation but renting? Yes or no.

 

Of course inheritance tax is a wealth tax. It is designed specifically to tax wealth. You also assume that because the tax forces you to sell property to pay it means the owners are not productive. Couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Did I say that? You're celebrating the sale of lands without considering all economic consequences (such as the tragedy of the anti-commons). Dogmatic prance for you!

I'm not letting you off the hook as you still haven't made it clear what you support. Given OAPs typically have no income, would you either force them to rent out their spare bedroom or to sell their abode?

By the way, your question makes no sense as OAPs will typically have subsidised rents (here that often means zero payments)

 

What market failure? You are simply assuming what is not in evidence.

First you say they are OAPs, now you say they have no income.

And you accuse me of inconsistency...

Despicable.

No. They have other alternatives to respond to market price signals, and can find the best one for themselves without you forcing them to choose what you insist they have to choose.

ANSWER THE QUESTION:

Are you stating that an OAP who owns their home mortgage-free does not have greater ability to pay than one who is in exactly the same situation but renting? Yes or no.

 

No, it is not. It taxes a TRANSFER of wealth from the deceased's estate to the heirs.

It is definitely the truth. If the owners were using the property productively, they'd be able to pay the tax without selling it, such as by, e.g., taking out a mortgage to finance the tax.

 

There are numerous. See, for example, fuel taxes to cater for pollution

Retired people tend not to work. Didn't you know? Perhaps you want to steal their pensions now?

Reality seems such a problem to you. They either have to allow people in their homes or sell them. Bit obvious really!

Already have! Its a nonsense question as OAPs don't have to pay their rents. Here it is subsidised to over 100% (given additional monies given to maintain the abode). Those that own are actually sometimes even worse off, given the inability to keep their homes warm (although extra benefits are provided to try and minimise the problem)

 

It sure looked like it. And you accuse me of being unclear...

No, "dogmatic prance" would be you claiming to consider all the economic consequences.

ROTFL!! No, sunshine, it is I who am not letting YOU off the hook:

Are you stating that an OAP who owns their home mortgage-free does not have greater ability to pay than one who is in exactly the same situation but renting? Yes or no.

Yes, I have.

Such claims are of course always false, absurd, stupid, and dishonest.

No. As I have already told you.

So now you are resorting to refusal to consider a simple cet.par. comparison. Typical. And despicable.

Answer the question:


Are you stating that an OAP who owns their home mortgage-free does not have greater ability to pay than one who is in exactly the same situation but renting? Yes or no.

 

Your use of dishonesty is noted!

 

That is a Pigovian tax, not a sales tax. So you obviously can offer no support for your claims. As I knew must be the case.

OK, so you agree that you were just makin' $#!+ up when you claimed they have no income. Good.

I'm not the one claiming OAPs have no income. You are.

Obviously false.

No, of course you haven't. Which is why I will now repeat it for you:

Are you stating that an OAP who owns their home mortgage-free does not have greater ability to pay than one who is in exactly the same situation but renting? Yes or no.

Now answer it.

No, it is not, because yes, of course they do if they are in exactly the same situation but rent instead of owning.

So again, instead of answering, you evade by pretending a cet. par. comparison is impossible.

Disgraceful.

No, they are never worse off. They might well be just stubborn and greedy enough to make themselves uncomfortable, though...

- - - Updated - - -

Your use of dishonesty is noted!

 

A silly comment! A Pigovian tax refers to either a tax (or subsidy) solution to consumption or production externality. In terms of consumption externalities, it necessarily refers to a sales tax.

I agree that your dogma has ensured that you want to harm OAP well-being.

Still struggling with the notion of retirement? What amuses me is that earlier in your ranting you suggested that billionaires have no income. Here, when we refer to the reality of retirement, you struggle!

So where is this OAP going to get the monies to pay this tax you want to force on them? Be clear!

I have. Here it is: Its a nonsense question as OAPs don't have to pay their rents. Here it is subsidised to over 100% (given additional monies given to maintain the abode). Those that own are actually sometimes even worse off, given the inability to keep their homes warm (although extra benefits are provided to try and minimise the problem)

 

A dishonest comment.

No, it doesn't, because a sales tax is a general tax on retail sales/consumption, and lacks the Pigovian element of being directed to alter specific behavior. While it is triggered by a sale, a gas tax is not a sales tax. You know this.

As you know, that is a bald, dishonest, and despicable fabrication on your part.

No, just identifying your bald fabrication that a pension is not income.

Again, that is a bald, outright fabrication on your part. I stated that contrary to your absurd and dishonest claims, not having any income would not make a billionaire poor. You know this.

No, you have not yet referred to the reality of retirement. You have claimed, absurdly and dishonestly, that pension recipients do not have any income. By contrast, I have referred to the reality of retirement, identifying the fact that retirees who own homes have greater ability to pay taxes than those who rent them.

Unlike you, I do not presume to decide for them. They have a number of choices based on market price signals that encourage efficient allocation.

No, of course you haven't, and you know it.

It is not a nonsense question, as OAPs do have to pay their rents, same as anyone else. They may get a subsidy for part or all of their rent in some jurisdictions, but that certainly doesn't make the question nonsensical, meaningless, or unintelligible.

Now ANSWER IT:

Are you stating that an OAP who owns their home mortgage-free does not have greater ability to pay than one who is in exactly the same situation but renting? Yes or no.

No. It is not. You would need to provide some evidence for such a claim, but will not be doing so. Such benefits are means tested, so you won't be providing any evidence that all OAP renters get them. IOW, your claim is nothing but (surprise!) a bald fabrication.

Again, that is a bald fabrication on your part designed to rationalize privilege for some of the richest, greediest, most parasitic people on the planet: Britain's landed aristocracy and gentry.

 

I believe that human moral capacity is a product of evolution. You do not. Simple.

See? You had to concoct a bald fabrication about what I plainly wrote. Taking in renters is merely one option. I described a number of others, and you know that. You also know that being "forced" to choose between the available alternatives, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, is entirely different from being forced to choose a particular alternative. You know it, but you had to make $#!+ up about it.

I.e., your fabrications do.

It's an ideal, like the elliptical orbits of Newtonian mechanics, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful concept.

People who don't understand economics, like... Nobel laureates in economics, perhaps?

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in Economics

ROTFL! Did ol' Milty have you pegged, or what!

Then merely a poorly insulated one...? On what basis do you demand that society subsidize waste of heating fuel by exempting those who waste it from taxation?

That is of course an outright fabrication. Wealth taxation has nothing to do with where they live, only with what they OWN. It is OWNING REAL ESTATE that makes them not poor. You know this.

But own big ones that require a lot of fuel to heat...? How fascinating.

Yet you demand that society subsidize them so exorbitantly that they do not seek accommodation more suited to their needs and means. Why?

No, what is simply devoid of rational thought is to suggest that they are not richer, and should not pay a higher tax, than those who are otherwise in the same situation but DON'T own real estate.

True: it is only honest and factual. I never claimed to be as cunning as you.

Nope. Wrong again. They will likely LIVE IN a larger house, but are unlikely to OWN one. They will be tenants, and you demand that their landlord be exempt from taxation because he is a "homeowner."

Oh, and btw, using the word, "have" rather than "occupy" was a rather cunning way to smuggle the new subject of ownership in with the prior concept of occupancy. Well done!

Garbage with no basis in fact.

Yep. And you are giving it to them, by demanding they be exempt from taxes because they are "poor."

No, it is not, any more than it is a fact that a sheep has five legs if you call the tail a leg. Calling billionaires with no income poor does not make them poor, sorry.

Nope. The poor don't own real estate. That's just a fact.

Neither will deceitfully redefining perfectly good English words to suit a purpose of disinformation.

You continue to be permanently unable to identify a single false statement I have made.

No, the financially damaging consequences for the idle landed rich who fund the Tories.

No, I merely identified the fact that wealth taxation is progressive. I didn't say I favor it. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

You know that is what you said.

Viable? Certainly. Advisable? Probably not.

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

It's clever enough to refute the notion that ability to pay can be measured by income.

http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

No, it was entirely to avoid inconveniencing rich, greedy, privileged, landowning parasites.

No, the reassessment was going to hit major landowners.

You know that is false.

Would such claims result from ignorance, stupidity, or dishonesty? Maybe all three?

 

You make the silliest of comments. A Pigovian tax will use a sales tax to recover deadweight loss. This is spectacularly obvious.

Will you be taking away this pension?

Your squirming makes no difference to me. We both know that you referred to zero-income billionaires. No such beast exists. We also both know that you've condemned home owners as evil (you squirmed over that too when confronted with economic sense)

They don't, unless they rent out a room or sell their property. We're back to the simple truth: you desire to punish old age pensioners who have managed to pay off their mortgages. You've tacitly admitted that by refused to answer a simple question: So where is this OAP going to get the monies to pay this tax you want to force on them? Be clear!

Perhaps you can refer to a well-being analysis that shows home owning OAPs are, ceteris paribus, significantly better off than renters? Get referencing!

Already answered! Its a nonsense question as home ownership doesn't make the OAP better-off. Indeed, given the costs of maintaining property, it can make them worse off.

 

I knew it would be revealing! You've gone for a rather low level article that just says that, through whinge about 14 elements, estimates of rent and land values have been underestimated. There is nothing here of particular interest. Note, for example, that it has sparked very little debate; not even any researchers bothering to counter any strong conclusions made.

Another perfect example of how you're prepared to make bogus claims and pretend otherwise. You stated "Every scientifically credible analysis shows that length of homeownership is the single best predictor of household social and economic welfare". And what do you give when challenged to support that ludicrous claim? A briefing document! And what does it say? Bland stuff like blacks have lower home ownership (which we'd expect given income differences).

Of course the claim is drivel. You'd have to argue that old age pensioners are the best off in the country!

 

I'm fairly well off. Apart from my own home I have 4 other properties which I rent out and make a living off (one which I pay tax) Under your system of wealth tax I will just move all my wealth offshore to a country that doesn't have wealth tax and it can generate me an income there and then Ill just rent in the UK and have no wealth there at all so the state will get no money in tax at all from me,

 

Taxing the wealthy has many pitfalls the most obvious of which: Who is 'wealthy?' At what point is the cut-off? Also, even if we taxed the 'wealthy' it would not be enough revenue to run the government. Tax revenue relies on the lower and middle class workers because of sheer volume.

 

It's going to be interesting watching you try to move the land and fixed improvements to another country...

You could sell tickets: "Watch the Greedy Parasite Try to Make the Facts of Objective Physical Reality Change to Suit His Narrow Financial Interests."