Guru
<sigh> I have posted this before, as you know:Originally Posted by Reiver
“A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of the Effect of Two-Rate Property Taxes on Construction,” Tideman and Plassmann, Journal of Urban Economics, 3/00, pp. 216-47
You will now claim that it does not say what it plainly does say.
That paper cannot be used to support a "land taxes have had very large beneficial effects in modern economies as well" conclusion". It comes out with much more specific (and mundane) analysis, concluding:
This paper examined separately the tax impact on the number of building permits and on the value per permit for four categories of construction. The impact was found to be positive and statistically significant for the number of permits but statistically insignificant for the value per permit; the estimated overall impact on the total value of construction is positive and statistically significant.
Surely you can do better? Try to reference something that actually claims "land taxes have had very large beneficial effects"...
Commentator
Flat tax had positive impact on tax revenue and economic growth in countries where it was established (eastern Europe). Simple and less bureaucratic system is prefferable.
As for marginal utility and disproportionate impact on the poor, I believe flat tax it is still better than consumption taxes or property taxes in this regard, so its not like the effect is great. Also, the poor usualy get various subsidies, welfare and other payments from the government, so in the end, the effect is largely negated.
Last edited by Blasphemer; Feb 26 2012 at 02:24 AM.
"Billions for equal chances, not a penny for equal results."
Charles Murray
It will shift the burden to the middle classes. Its been investigated, for example, by Skipper and Burton (2008, Ramifications of a Flat Tax—Shifting the Burden to the Middle Class, International Advances in Economic Research, Vol. 14, pp. 460-47)
Guru
What I understood it to say is that given a choice in nearby localities, the locality offering the best tax deal will increase its "market share" from nearby communities.
However how does that translate to lower employment taxes which have not spurred an equivalent boom in that sector; with no competition from a "higher tax rate" locality?
Guru
Correction: they pay no federal income tax. They still pay payroll taxes, and all the various excise taxes and fees. One might argue that EITC accounts for their payroll taxes, but if so then they're actually paying income taxes--their tax credits are only sufficient to cover income or payroll taxes.
That said, the distribution of society's benefits is skewed heavily towards the top of the income scale. Wealthfare accounts for far more of the budget than welfare.
People may also being paying their cable bill and cell phone bill. That they pay these bills or their retirement annuity bill (social security) or retirement medical insurance bill (medicare) does not excuse the fact they pay nothing for the separate rights and privileges that we all receive equally and are paid for unequally with income tax.
The separate benefits that folks might enjoy in the private sector are also irrelevant. They do not belong to society, they belong to those that produce them or to whom they then choose to sell them.
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
Guru
How can anyone have a problem with economic forms of discrimination, in a political-economy where it is both socially acceptable and legal?
Guru
Yes, of course it can. But thanks for fulfilling my prophecy that you would claim it does not say what it does say.
Given the modest level of land tax used and the achievement of statistical significance over such a small sample, the land tax's beneficial effects were very large.It comes out with much more specific (and mundane) analysis, concluding:
This paper examined separately the tax impact on the number of building permits and on the value per permit for four categories of construction. The impact was found to be positive and statistically significant for the number of permits but statistically insignificant for the value per permit; the estimated overall impact on the total value of construction is positive and statistically significant.
Surely you can do better? Try to reference something that actually claims "land taxes have had very large beneficial effects"...
Last edited by Roy L; Feb 26 2012 at 06:07 PM.
Guru
Five absurd fabrications from you here: the first fabrication is that SS is a retirement annuity, which of course it is not; the second is that Medicare is a retirement medical insurance plan, which of course it is not; the third is that people who do not pay federal income tax do not pay any federal taxes other than SS and Medicare, which they do, including excise taxes, tariffs, gas tax, etc.; the fourth is that we all receive rights and privileges from government equally, when government in fact confers privileges on the wealthy and privileged BY VIOLATING the rights of the rest of us; the fifth fabrication is that only income tax pays for federal government operations.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks