Thread: Do you have the right to say that a “rich” person isn’t paying enough taxes?

Originally Posted by kowalskil

What laws are you referring to? The term "employment at will" is new to me.
.

He's mostly incoherent, but I believe he has some issue with the wage-labor arrangement, but can't be entirely sure.

Work-at-will

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:
“ any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. ”

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Would you still have your line of reasoning if, for example, the US actually solved poverty by bearing true witness to its own laws regarding employment at will?

The Law of Rent over-rules lawyers' laws, so no such reform can possibly solve poverty.

Originally Posted by kowalskil

What laws are you referring to? The term "employment at will" is new to me.
.

Here is an easy to understand version:

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:

any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Originally Posted by Anikdote

He's mostly incoherent, but I believe he has some issue with the wage-labor arrangement, but can't be entirely sure.

Work-at-will

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:
“ any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. ”

I would argue that your understanding of the concept and argument, is what is incoherent.

Originally Posted by Roy L

The Law of Rent over-rules lawyers' laws, so no such reform can possibly solve poverty.

Actually solving for a poverty money in money based markets can have some influence on the equilibrium of rent seeking, as it applies to Ricardian Rent.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Actually solving for a poverty money in money based markets can have some influence on the equilibrium of rent seeking, as it applies to Ricardian Rent.

If that meant anything, which it doesn't, it would be wrong.

Originally Posted by Reiver

We've already agreed that its a good idea not to use the term 'Georgist'. Georgism,

My nomination for Unconscious Self-Refutation of the Month.

you've emotively ranted

You're lying. I have simply identified, in clear, dispassionate English, evils that any normal person would react emotionally to.

about home owning 'thieves' even though the housing tenure decision reflects an attempt to minimise the costs associated with old age poverty

"Old age poverty"? Why would there be any threat of old age poverty?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: government forcibly takes the rightful earned income of the productive and gives it to landowners in return for nothing, before the people who earned it even have a chance to save it for their old age. Ordinary working people, being far more intelligent than stupid, lying apologists for landowner privilege, understand that if you are forced to choose between being a poor victim and a rich thief, thief is better.

(and the consequences for the labour market is an increase in economic rents derived through labour exploitation.

Yes, the disgraceful spectacle of "modern economics": employers get rent; workers get rent; but landowners don't get any rent we need concern ourselves with.

No, its merely a reflection of how land rant leads to a complete failure to understand economic outcome.

??? BWAHAHAHAAA!! This, from the pathetic, lying boob who claims homeowners' economic outcomes are worse than tenants' economic outcomes??

ROTFL!!!

That you're referring to losses associated with increased labour exploitation as evidence of partial control of the means of production takes an illogical position to the extreme.

That you're claiming the landless are less economically exploited than homeowners shows you regard your readers as being even less intelligent than yourself.

Tracing the error is straight forward. As you are wholly reliant on emotionalism over land, you have no means to take into account labour relations. That guarantees a position inconsistent with economic reality.

I say homeowners end up better off than the landless. You say the landless end up better off than homeowners. Everyone reading this knows my statement is economic reality and yours is a stupid lie, including you.

Again you show your 'innocence' of economic reality. Burrows, for example, shows that over half of British poor are home owners.

No, of course he doesn't. Stop telling such stupid lies. All he shows is that if you ignore assets, it's possible to lie that rich retirees with modest incomes who own real estate are "poor." And your "modern economics" extols such despicable, cretinous lying as the acme of sagacity.

We've also already seen, via Castles empirical testing of the Kemeny hypothesis, that countries with high poverty also have high home ownership rates.

Sure: the bigger the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners, the higher the poverty rate and the more desperate people are to avoid taking the vow of perpetual poverty forced on the landless.

Again you show your 'innocence' of economic reality.

I'm not the one stupidly claiming the landless are better off than homeowners, pal. You are.

I've referred directly to empirical analysis that shows that home ownership, through the effects of labour immobility on the reservation wage, increases underpayment.

The privileged are not as desperately dependent on wages as the landless. So?

By definition, that is 'economic rent'. Its just a form that you find uncomfortable as its not reliant on ranting about land.

Nope. It's only economic rent by a definition contrived to call returns to labor and capital rent, but not the return to land. It is a definition that was concocted by the founders of modern neoclassical economics specifically to prevent identification or knowledge of the fact that the return to land is a return obtained in return for zero (0) contribution to production -- i.e., by stealing.

Have you admitted yet that you're a home owner and therefore, through your land rant, accused yourself of being a thief yet?

<yawn> I know that song, Reiver, because every stupid, evil, lying sack of $#!+ sings the same one: if I don't own land, I'm envious of those who do; if I do own land, I'm a hypocrite. Thanks for proving you are right at home among the foulest, most dishonest and despicable filth ever to have polluted the earth with their existence.

The problem for you is that, unlike Georgism

Thanks for refuting yourself again.

which is reliant on the increasingly irrelevant Long Dead Henry,

Please present your evidence that facts of objective reality become less true proportionally to how long those who identified them have been dead. You can start by showing that Pythagoras's Theorem no longer holds. Either that, or just admit that you are a stupid, lying apologist for greed, privilege, injustice and evil.

other political economic schools of thought are vibrant and adapting according to empirical phenomena.

<yawn> Like your empirically established phenomenon that homeowners are poorer than the landless...?

ROTFL!!

We've seen the consequences of that here: making ridiculous statements over home ownership that are inconsistent with the evidence and also, let's face it, basic economic analysis.

<yawn> Speaking of ridiculous statements, you say homeowners are worse off than the landless (and have provided no evidence for that claim). I say the landless are worse off than homeowners. I am objectively correct. You are full of $#!+.

Internet Georgists can stamp their feet as much as they want. Neo-liberalism has nothing to do with Georgism.

You again refute yourself.

You'll find that Kemeny has been warning about the risks from neo-liberalism for some time.

But unlike Georgists such as Fred Foldvary, Kemeny has proved himself and his theories unable to make any accurate predictions.

Note of course that the current crisis has had no impact on the basic relationships: poverty risk and home ownership are still positively related and home ownership still increases either equilibrium unemployment or underpayment because of the consequences on labour mobility. That you don't realise that only reflects the nature of your non-economic approach where you obsess on land-based emotionalism.

Refuted above.

The Austrians predicted it; the Marxists predicted it etc etc etc.

No, of course they didn't.

Anyone that understands neo-liberalism would acknowledge the instabilises created by the hegemony of the financial class. Georgism, which is clearly a marginal school of no relevance except to minor side issues, isn't required.

LOL! ONLY the Georgists consistently predicted it, because only the Georgists understood it was all based on land speculation.

Let's summarise your error; you've effectively stated: "Home owners are thieves who, although home ownership increases economic rents, partially own the means of production". That isn't just cretinous (in terms of inconsistency with empirical evidence), its also quite illogical.

It is indisputable fact proved by economic outcome.

How would you define underpayment? (No need to answer, I already realise that you have no understanding of the labour market and therefore no means to really understand economic rents)

Underpayment is payment less than the free market value of the contribution to production. Calling the payment for a contribution to production "economic rent" because its free market value is more than you think it should be may be the method of your "modern" economics, but it is idiotic and dishonest.

Again you only show that you don't understand economic reality. You have no means to discount the Kemeny hypothesis.

Other, that is, than observing and identifying the fact that homeowners are better off than the landless...

You certainly have no means to discount the empirical evidence into how old age poverty risk increases the attractiveness of home ownership, despite the potential additional costs paid by those involved

LOL! OTC, I have proved I understand it far better than you and fools like Kemeny et al.: old age poverty risk is created by government stealing the earnings of the working landless through income tax, sales tax, VAT, etc. before they have a chance to save them, and giving the money to landowners in return for nothing; it is self-evident -- and frankly only a lying idiot could refuse to know it -- that stealing from the landless and giving the money to landowners makes landowning a more attractive proposition than landlessness, with its vow of perpetual poverty.

Any of your friends or family own their house?

I'm sure they do. So? I have no control over what they do.

Emotive claptrap!

<yawn>

As usual you give the emotive rant and the land script to hide from reply.

LOL! You're the one who always has to run away from facts and/or hide them behind a smokescreen of self-important blather.

You've ranted about 'thieving' home owners despite the simple self-insurance role it serves.

I'm sure slave owning served a similar role....

It was of course made worse by the absurd remarks over the means of production demonstrating that, given your Georgism, you're horribly out of touch.

You always have to deny even the most self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, such as that land is one of the means of production.

Originally Posted by Roy L

My nomination

No need to get your knickers in a twist. I’ve merely agreed with you. Georgists, to try and grab some credibility, should always deny that they are Georgists. Makes sense!

You're lying.

You may want to try and justify the emotive rant. I don’t see the point myself. I’d much prefer an attempt at valid use of economics. Perhaps you Georgists could all get together and try and think up something? Relying on Henry just doesn’t seem fair. His irrelevance isn’t his fault. It is a mere consequence of history. Crikey, we couldn’t expect him to understand neo-liberalism and the impact on the welfare state and home ownership.

Why would there be any threat of old age poverty?

Bit obvious really! The nature of the age-income profile.

Oh, wait a minute...

This is just repetition of your land humph. Consider Britain. Why does she have higher poverty rates compared to other countries? We have to refer to the wage distribution and how, despite a relatively successful welfare state, inequalities reflect numerous labour market criteria: higher underpayment (e.g. the long term consequences of weak collective bargaining and minimum wage protection), a low skilled equilibrium (e.g. demand focused on product with low income elasticity of demand), steeper hierarchical structures within firm organisation (e.g. reduced use of vocational training and evidence of certification for screening purposes) etc. The consequences for home ownership is obvious: as illustrated by the self-insurance analysis. It was of course further inflamed by a neo-liberalism that, through Thatcherism, severely limited social housing.

Yes, the disgraceful spectacle of "modern economics"

As usual you’re not replying to the comment. We both know that you cannot deny the consequences for the labour market mentioned: an increase in economic rents derived through labour exploitation. Your land rant just leads to a failure to explain economic outcome!

This, from the pathetic, lying boob who claims homeowners' economic outcomes are worse than tenants' economic outcomes??

I’ve referred to the empirical facts. Home owners have been found to be more likely to suffer from mental illnesses than their renting counterparts (evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Home ownership is also found to hinder wages through the impact on reservation wages (evidence referenced from the abundant literature into the Oswald hypothesis, which originally argued that home ownership’s main effect was on the equilibrium unemployment rate). The problem for you is that I’ve referred to economic reality. It’s not something that you’ll be comfortable with as its just not consistent with the rant script!

That you're claiming the landless are less economically exploited than homeowners shows you regard your readers as being even less intelligent than yourself.

Again you’re forced to ignore my comment. You know that you are guilty of an illogical position as you know that the evidence shows that home ownership provides a mechanism to increase economic rents through greater underpayment. Now the clever response would be to adapt and admit your silly error. Referring to ‘partial control of the means of production’ over housing tenure that is found to increase theft of labour value? Terribly tut-worthy!

I say homeowners end up better off than the landless.

Tell that to the Germans who have lower poverty and lower home ownership rates. We’ve already seen, for example, that over half of Britain’s poor are home owners. That result is effectively forced on them as they try to income smooth and ensure the problems associated with old age poverty are reduced (see, for example, the consequences of ‘fuel’ poverty on living standards and winter death rates)

No, of course he doesn't

Your replies lack any content or craft. That Burrows finds that over half of British poor are home owners is a matter of fact.

Sure: the bigger the welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners, the higher the poverty rate and the more desperate people are to avoid taking the vow of perpetual poverty forced on the landless.

Again you show no understanding of reality, preferring to go into the emotional foot stamping. We have extensive empirical evidence that shows a direct relationship between home ownership and poverty risk. We have that evidence supported by sociological analysis and confirmed by economic analysis into aspects such as the life-cycle hypothesis.

The privileged are not as desperately dependent on wages as the landless. So?

Again you show no understanding of reality. Calling home owners ‘the privileged’ is nonsensical as we are also talking about the poor.

Nope.

Payment below wages associated with productivity criteria is certainly economic rent. You needed to be born several hundred years ago. Your rant would have made some sense then. Today we know, through the theory of the firm and labour economics, that its production relations that drives inefficient economic rent.

<yawn> I know that song, Reiver, because every stupid, evil, lying sack of $#!+ sings the same one

A brilliant example of how reliant you are on emotive humping. You called home owners thieves. I don’t think you did that willingly. You are just so blinkered with your land rant and, when the discussion moved to the rationality of home ownership, you couldn’t help yourself. You’re your own worst enemy my dear chap!

Please present your evidence that facts of objective reality become less true proportionally to how long those who identified them have been dead.

Do you think economic relations are a constant? Crikey, I know you fellows don’t do economics but please at least blag a level of sense! Consider, for example, something as straight-forward as the boundaries of the firm. That has dramatically changed by the development of a managerial class capable of ensuring the exploitation of economies of scale. And the consequences of that change? A shift away from supply/demand to more institutionalist analysis. Changes which wouldn't be understood by the long time dead.

I say the landless are worse off than homeowners. I am objectively correct. You are full of $#!+.

You state that, despite it either increasing equilibrium unemployment or underpayment (i.e. economic rents associated with exploitation of the worker), home ownership means those workers have ‘partial control of the means of production’. It continues to be illogical, but a jolly good example of how your land rant forces you to make ludicrous comment.

You again refute yourself.

Its not an earth shattering comment: neo-liberalism has nothing to do with Georgism. Just had to say it again though as I know you will continue to deny the obvious as you try to snide your “I’m not a Georgist but I think Georgism explains the world” cobblers.

But unlike Georgists such as Fred Foldvary, Kemeny has proved himself and his theories unable to make any accurate predictions.

Kemeny predicted that home ownership and poverty rates are related. He was shown to be correct through empirical evidence. We both know that Georgists aren’t relevant to the debate. Crikey, as I've already told you, they make the crackpots abusing the Austrian tag look worldly!

No, of course they didn't.

No need to be childish. That the Austrians predicted it is a matter of fact. That the Marxists predicted it is a matter of fact.

ONLY the Georgists consistently predicted it, because only the Georgists understood it was all based on land speculation.

Again, neo-liberalism has nothing to do with land. It is about the hegemony of the financial class. By referring to the current crisis you’ve only presented an explanation for the continued importance of the Marxists and the irrelevance of the Georgists: the Marxists have been able to understand how capitalism has evolved.

It is indisputable fact proved by economic outcome.

Partial ‘worker’ ownership of the means of production that leads to an increase in the theft of labour value? Still cretinous!

Calling the payment for a contribution to production "economic rent" because its free market value is more than you think it should be may be the method of your "modern" economics, but it is idiotic and dishonest.

More than I think? More than what supply and demand predicts! I’ve known that you’ve hated economics since you stated that neoclassical economics was a conspiracy against your God, Henry. We’ve seen the consequences here: a complete ignorance of labour relations and therefore the dominant inefficiency within capitalism.

Other, that is, than observing and identifying the fact that homeowners are better off than the landless...

Tell that to the German wealthy and the British poor!

I have proved I understand it far better than you and fools like Kemeny et al.

I stopped there. You don’t know Kemeny’s research. You’ve simply discounted him as he doesn’t fit within your emotionalism and your land rant script.

I'm sure they do. So?

You don’t call them thieves to ensure hypocrisy doesn’t raise its ugly head? That would be unfortunate! Hypocrisy is so ugly

Originally Posted by Roy L

Was there any reason for Newton to quibble over the difference between weight and mass?

It was in reference to means of production and land and a dwelling that may be on that land.

Originally Posted by Roy L

If that meant anything, which it doesn't, it would be wrong.

Why do you believe that solving for a poverty of money in our money based markets would be bad for any private sector?