Thread: What are the pros of a flat tax over a proggessive tax?

Originally Posted by Reiver

The self-insurance role of home ownership is well understood (and tested empirically by the analysis into welfare states by the likes of Frank Castles). In contrast, you've suggested home owners are worst than thieves. Tut tut!

Yes, well, I'm sure slave ownership served a self-insurance role in the antebellum south, too. But with homeownership it's more self-defense than self-insurance: landowning is the only way to get off the treadmill of the landless and onto the landowners' escalator that it powers.

Originally Posted by Roy L

But with homeownership it's more self-defense than self-insurance

Wrong! The pressures of home ownership lead to well-being problems in themselves. The costs from the self-insurance can be sizeable.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Wrong!

No, I am correct.

The pressures of home ownership lead to well-being problems in themselves. The costs from the self-insurance can be sizeable.

As is normal with any rent seeking behavior -- as you would know if you knew any economics.

Originally Posted by Roy L

As is normal with any rent seeking behavior

Calling self-insurance 'rent seeking behaviour' is very silly! That's the trouble with your old-hatted Georgism. As soon as you are asked to talk specifics you put your foot in it

How about the rich, the vast majority of their wealth is not liquid, its in ownership of their company, or property, or factories.

I dunno, maybe they ought to GET liquid. Our savings rate is way too low. I would exempt primary residences anyway.

Whats this wealth tax rate going to be? 10% maybe?

Probably much lower than that. Maybe down to 3 or 4%.

The trickle down effect hasn't been dis proven. It is just the top are globalists and it is trickling elsewhere

If it ain't trickling down, it must be trickling up. Which, of course, it has been for 40-some years now.

What's in it for me if it is trickling down elsewhere?

Originally Posted by Reiver

Calling self-insurance 'rent seeking behaviour' is very silly!

That's just another stupid and dishonest strawman lie from you, Reiver. You always have to tell stupid and dishonest lies about what I have plainly written. ALWAYS.

As you know, but deliberately chose to lie about, I didn't say self-insurance was rent seeking behavior. That WOULD be silly. I said that using LANDOWNERSHIP to self-insure was rent seeking behavior. That statement, of course, is not silly at all but objectively correct, because in that case, the mechanism of self-insurance is a privilege of collecting rent.

That's the trouble with your old-hatted Georgism.

<yawn> You again choose, consciously and deliberately, to lie about what I have plainly written, as I knew you inevitably would. You have become quite incontinent about it. I have not mentioned Georgism, and have told you many times that I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist. So you are just name-calling. As usual.

As soon as you are asked to talk specifics you put your foot in it

Another stupid lie from you.

Originally Posted by Roy L

I didn't say self-insurance was rent seeking behavior.

We know that homeownership is used as a self-insurance device. You're therefore making that very much idiotic claim! As I said, once you are forced to talk specifics you make all sorts of outrageous clams.

I have not mentioned Georgism, and have told you many times that I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist. So you are just name-calling. As usual.

I merely know political economy and your one dimensional script. Perhaps you should widen your horizons? Actually make valid comment for the change!

Originally Posted by Reiver

We know that homeownership is used as a self-insurance device. You're therefore making that very much idiotic claim!

Nope. You again choose deliberately to lie. Your "argument" is a fallacy of composition, equivalent to claiming that because sugar is food, and eating sugar makes you fat, eating food makes you fat. It's just fallacious, absurd and (surprse!) dishonest.

As I said, once you are forced to talk specifics you make all sorts of outrageous clams.

LOL! You are the one who can't do better than obvious lies and fallacies.

I merely know political economy and your one dimensional script. Perhaps you should widen your horizons? Actually make valid comment for the change!

<yawn>

Originally Posted by Roy L

Nope. You again choose deliberately to lie.

Nope, its basic logic. We know that home ownership is about self-insurance. You've accused those home owners of being thieves and 'rent seekers'. Again, you only show your contempt for your common man as your ideological rant runs amok. The rest of your script is your standard response to being caught out. A regular outcome (even with the less educated right wingers!)