Those rants were rant. There was no economics. Why you'd refer to two rant comments which provided no economic comment is a strange one. Has dissonance hit home too strongly?
taxes are paid on earned income or asset appreciation such as increased tax value or interest gifts are generally not taxed
You likely mean your estate gives sums to the beneficiaries. If so then the first $5.4 million is exempt from taxation. Anybody who receives more than that shouldn't complaining too much especially if the estate holds sums overseas in tax free accounts.
Why should contributing to the wealth of the community be taxed? Asset appreciation is not taxed until it is liquidated, and even then not always. More generally, earning is taxed, but taking without earning is not. The intent of the tax code may be judged on the basis of that fact.
Your refusal to know the relevant facts of economics does not convert those facts into rants, sorry. That is your incorrect opinion. As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
¹Even in the Bible it says to pay taxes. ²Real estate appreciates and taxes are often raised when that happens. ³Lottery winnings do not constitute "earned income" and are not subjected to social security or disability taxation. However, they are subjected to income tax.
I've asked you to refer to economics. You've given me rant. Then you've ranted about the rant..Are we waiting for the rant about the rant about the rant next? It would be a lot simpler if you actually referred to economics. Copy and paste some Georgism?
Yeah, and it says a lot of other stupid things, like to kill people who work on Sunday or eat hybrid plants. But the tax is on the total value, not the appreciation. Lottery winnings are irrelevant to everyone but the winners. I was referring to the income obtained by privilege.
Another post without any economics? We know why. Give any coherent economics and you'll be confirming Georgism. Give no coherent economics and you can avoid that dissonance.
Yes, your post was another one devoid of economics. Yes, we do. Georgism-obsessed gibberish beneath response.
Why pretend you are making a contribution to the discussion when you always just make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written? Why are you disingenuously pretending it was incorrect when it was trivially true? Again, you are pretending to make a comment, but are in fact just falsely accusing me of insincerity. There is no doubt that my position is radical. No, I have repeatedly caught you making false statements about what I have plainly written. See above for examples. Again, this is nothing but your usual unsupported accusation of insincerity. It is really, really old.
I can only go by the economics you've been forced to supply. That twinned Georgism 101 with Neoclassical 101. Take, for example, your use of externalities. Standard neoclassical analysis into market failure. There's no debate in it. Would externalities analysis be considered as radical? Environmental Economics would find that to be insipid and orthodox. I've seen no application of heterodox economics. Indeed, you ape the right wing libertarians by just pretending free markets are possible and desirable. So you've given up on free markets now? Georgism is really really old. I salute your tacit acknowledgment of that at least.
No, you are forced to ignore the economics I supply and have no choice but to change the subject. Watch: See? Nothing but name calling. Yet you falsely claim it is not economics. Why are you forced to make so many obviously false claims? <sigh> Special relativity is not considered radical. Quantum mechanics is also not considered radical. But a new theory that seamlessly combined the two would be considered radical. GET IT???? No, you merely pretend not to have seen it. No, that is another baldly false claim on your part. Right wing libertarians advocate privilege and forced subsidies for the rich, and merely pretend they are advocating free markets. Unlike you, I am able to distinguish between markets that function best when free and ones that can't function well on their own because of market failure conditions. Why are you so obsessed with obsolete and irrelevant 19th century bobbins like Marxism and Georgism?
That you think referring to political economy is 'name calling' is a worry! When making these type of comments, it's probably a good idea to be accurate yourself. I've stated that, when you do refer to economics, you trip up. We saw that with a 'radical' being so reliant on neoclassical orthodox comment. It's for that reason that you prefer not to give direct economic comment... In Henry George's day, obsessive reference to land could be defended. As economic development continued, it increasingly became a limited position. To suggest that you can reverse that by adding neoclassical concepts Is not credible. Take climate change. Heterodox economists dismiss the idea that we can understand the problem, and derive a solution, through orthodox externalities analysis. The difference is paper thin. Right wing libertarian mythical free markets is based on controlling the state. Your mythical variation is based on controlling the land owner. When it comes to economic reality, you all ignore market failures that make free markets impossible and undesirable. Like precious metals markets and how you don't care about resource based conflict? I agree that Georgism is irrelevant. Any land obsession will be. Marxusm of course continues to significantly impact on economic analysis. It's not possible to duly understand labour markets without it. It's also needed to understand problems such as the tendency towards economic crisis.