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

But it's clearly not 'nothing', even ignoring the services provided by said taxation, he's paying to have his property rights enforced.

Lots of things are taxed twice, when their made and again when their sold. He's no paying twice to government though, he's paying once to the previous owner and then over and over to government in the form of taxation.

We're not saying anything profound here though, land is an economic good, one that is fixed in quantity, that it'll be more valuable tomorrow than today is just realizing the inevitable.

Loans have been back by a whole slew of things other than land, that it was over leveraged this time around was problematic, the root of the problem is banks willing to take risks knowing there was no downside, Fannie had their backs.

According to my last assessment, mostly towards the object on my land, not the land itself.

Single tax certainly isn't the worst idea I've heard, it's just that every time I encounter the folks who support it, it comes off a bit dogmatic and puts entirely too much emphasis on an economic good in lieu of the most important economic agents, people.

 

So? How does that remove the fact that partial control of the means of production led to exploitation?

If you define "underpayment" as a payment less than whatever amount you consider correct...

Unless it goes to landowners, of course....

Don't be stupid. It's used as a way to become one of the thieves rather than one of the victims.

That's rich, coming from the guy who refuses to know facts based purely on whether the people involved in them or who identified them are still living or not.

 

First, it didn't. Second, it shows just how foolish your argument is when you have to refer to medieval times for comment about today's economy.

Nothing to do with me. Its to do with the market and how the market 'fails'.

Your standard tactic! When confronted with actual economics you make vague huff. Try to actually respond:

It guarantees working poverty, hinders human capital investment and maximises economic inefficiency (as we link it to the boundaries of the firm and inefficient hierarchy)

A home owner is a thief? I hope you're renting dear boy! Back to reality. Home ownership is related to poverty. It is rational to utilise it when confronted with the associated risks. The consequences, however, can still be very much negative. We've already seen that with the consequences on the labour market; consequences that you ignore as your land rant has zero understanding of that market (which has to be maintained, otherwise the huff is so easily torn apart)

You won't like my approach. Its based on economic reality, sound understanding of modern economics and appropriate use of empirical evidence.

 

In my opinion, only the wealthiest cannot pay enough by allowing official poverty to exist with our tax dollars.

 

I suspect the vast majority of working rich pay a 40% marginal rate on the last dollar, which is what the marginal rate applies to.

I doubt many CEOs pay less tax than their office cleaner. Maybe in rare instances they may pay a less marginal tax rate, but that would be extremely rare.

In Buffet's case, if that is what you are refencing, his assistant probably makes 100k/year, and he makes most of his money off of investmetns, not working. And he certainly pays more tax than his assistant even if his marginal rate is less.

 

The landowner qua landowner contributes nothing by definition: the land was already there, with no help from him or anyone else.

Oh, really? How is he paying? The enforcement of his property "rights" is precisely what gives him the wherewithal to pay any taxes he owes on the land in the first place. You could with equal "logic" claim that when a protection racketeer pays his muscle to lean on a businessman, he is paying to have his interest in the victim's business protected -- but that "interest" is what gives him the money with which to pay the muscle.

"Double taxation" is a silly and dishonest canard designed to erase the fact that the owner of a privilege like a land title gets an ongoing flow of benefits from government, not a one-time benefit.

In fact, of course, the purchase price he pays the owner is just the capitalized present value of all the future benefits government and the community will give the landowner over and over, indefinitely into the future.

He's paying over and over to government because government is providing benefits to him over and over. Hello? Why would he get them for free, at the expense of the productive, after the first year? Do you expect to go to the grocery store for a loaf of bread over and over and not pay over and over? Why is he paying the previous owner anything at all? Why is the previous owner pocketing value that government and the community create?

"We" may not be expressing any profound insights here, but I am: that land will be more valuable tomorrow than today is not inevitable, because it depends on government and the community making use of that land more economically advantageous.

Bank lending has almost always been directed almost exclusively to buying land, because it can't be hidden or moved.

Your assessment may or may not be accurate; the area you live in may have low land value; the object on your land may be an unusually new or valuable one. As a general rule, though, the great majority of total real estate value is land value. This is based on the fact that land appreciates while improvements depreciate, and both do so exponentially. It is mathematically inevitable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "emphasis." LVT is all about people: their stolen rights to liberty; the justice they deserve; the prosperity of which landowner privilege deprives them, etc. All of those things are governed by land and the Law of Rent.

 

In Long Dead George's time...

Today we just see the consequences of the Georgist obsession: a failure to understand production relations and a willingness to harm individuals (such as home owners) because of a simple minded dogma

 

Breathtaking idiocy and dishonesty. What we indisputably see today are the consequences of ignoring, dismissing and ridiculing -- but never, NEVER refuting -- geoist analysis.

Did the XSSR follow geoist policy recommendations, or the Harvard boys' based on your cretinous "modern economics"? The answer is obvious and indisputable, and so are the consequences: a fascist kleptocracy. You just have to contrive some rationalization for evading all such facts.

Did CA, NV, AZ and FL follow the geoist prescription and recover publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit, or did they do the opposite, and slash property taxes causing a land speculation boom that ended in a financial catastrophe that threatened the entire global financial system? The answer is obvious. You just have to evade all such facts.

Did Iceland, Ireland, the UK, Italy, Spain or Portugal learn from geoist analysis and prevent land speculation and welfare subsidy giveaways to landowners from taking over their economies? Or did they follow the brain-dead recommendations of your brain-dead "modern economics" and sleepwalk off a cliff of limitless landowner greed? The answer is obvious. You just have to evade all such facts.

ROTFL!! What an astoundingly vapid, superficial, even infantile comment. As if tax-funded welfare subsidy giveaways for homeowners are not harming anyone; as if taxing away working people's earnings isn't harming anyone. As if removing people's rights to liberty so they must pay rich greedy parasites for access to opportunity doesn't harm anyone. As if the inevitable financial busts consequent on the inevitable land speculation booms don't harm anyone.

Japan: a massive land boom in the 80s followed by a "lost decade" -- now more than two decades -- of stagnation and unemployment. Did that happen because they respected geoist analysis and followed geoist policy prescriptions, or because geoist analysis was studiously ignored (though of course never refuted)?

The same story in the US in the 2000s, with mortgage-financed land speculation leading to a world-threatening financial collapse whose fat lady still hasn't sung. You are really going to blame that on a geoist "obsession" when geoists indisputably had no input whatever into the policies that caused the disaster? REALLY??

Give your head a shake, Reiver. Seriously. It's time.

 

Only a Georgist would refer to home owners as thieves who partially own the means of production, despite the economic reality describing how home ownership is a reaction to poverty which is also associated with higher labour exploitation. It’s about ignoring economics in order to peddle a one dimensional land rant. It’s beyond cretinous. As I said, it’s on a par with a cult

Nothing to do with Georgists. As already mentioned, the link between welfare states and housing tenure has been ably understood by Kemeny and empirically tested by the likes of Castles. You’d appreciate that if you were typing ‘with knowledge’, rather than ranting about how evil modern economics is for leaving Long Dead George far behind.

This is just bluster to hide from your very silly error. We’ve seen that home ownership increases labour exploitation, making a mockery of the ‘partial control’ of the means of production comment. We’ve seen that home ownership becomes vital as a self-insurance mechanism, given the failure of the welfare state to control for old age poverty risks. We’ve seen your contempt for home owners (despite you probably being one) as you refer to them as thieves despite a simple fact: they are rational economic agents who are using housing to income smooth when confronted with severe uncertainty.

You should be ashamed of yourself, ranting about housing tenure when they’re just looking after their families (and of course suffering from the consequences; e.g. see Burrows analysis into how home owners are, arguably because of stress created by mortgage repayments, more likely to suffer from mental illnesses)

 

Yes, most money earned by rich people is invested into economy, not spent on food, etc.
.

 

Yes,

as long as we can afford a War on Poverty,

without actually solving poverty,

but still engendering hellish conditions on Earth

instead of merely resorting to sufficient socialism to both promote and provide for the general welfare and common defense of our Union, and who's citizenry may become, as a result, better Angels on Earth who have no need for the expense of Government.

 

It may or may not be invested in the economy.

If they are sitting on it in a bank account, and the bank is not lending the money, it's not being effectively invested in the economy.

 

The rich don't earn very much of the money they get, and they mainly use it to bid up the prices of each other's rent collection privileges, not to invest in productive capital that helps the economy.

 

I'm not a Georgist -- that's just a lie you always have to tell -- and actually, homeowners have life much easier than thieves: government is on their side, and nobody questions the wealth they take from others; indeed, they are regarded as the pillars of society, and run no risk of going to jail for having stolen from society. The losses are too diffuse, too hard for lying fools to see.

That's just an indisputable fact.

No, that's just another stupid lie from you. Few homeowners have ever been poor. That fact proves you are objectively wrong. As usual.

No, that's just stupid garbage you made up. You just call it "exploitation" of the privileged just because they are privileged and can therefore afford to take it easy.

No, it's about your need to tell stupid lies to rationalize privilege and justify injustice.

<yawn>

You've had years of practice dismissing, ignoring and ridiculing geoist analysis. But you still can't refute any of it. Not a single sentence.

Indeed: the financial collapse was inevitable precisely because the policy makers would have nothing to do with Georgists.

ROTFL!! The research you refer to dates from before the global housing crash and financial crisis, and has therefore been rendered obsolescent by events the fools who lead "modern" economics did not expect.

The Georgists predicted the housing crash years before it happened. "Modern" economics didn't. You always have to run away from that fact.

I made no error; I stated an indisputable fact. You have been lying about that ever since.

No, we've seen you redefine exploitation.

And we've seen you commit that hilarious non sequitur fallacy.

ROTFL!! It's not the "failure of the welfare state to control for old age poverty risks." It's the plain fact that where landowner privilege rules, not owning land is equivalent to taking a vow of perpetual poverty.

No, I think it's still a bad time to own real estate in my area. And in lots of other places. My contempt is reserved for apologists for greed, privilege and injustice.

Certainly homeownership is usually just financial self-defense. The massive welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners ensures it's either that or the vow of perpetual poverty. That is the genius of systematic, institutionalized evil: first, it makes its victims participate in it in self-defense. Then it makes them dependent on it. Finally, it recruits them as its most fanatical defenders.

Oh, you poor, pathetic dodo.

The productive are stressed precisely because they are forced to pay for government twice: once in taxes to fund government services and infrastructure, and then again in land rent to idle landowners for access to the same services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for.

If they paid land rent to government instead of taxes, cutting out the something-for-nothing payment to the landowners, they'd have triple or more the disposable income they have now, and no mortgage at all: they'd be able to buy a decent house outright for a month's wages.

I pity you: you now have to contrive some way to refuse to know that fact so you can continue serving evil.

 

Well then show me a valid source that refutes my argument that the rich are paying a disproportionate amount more in taxes. Show me stats that demonstrate a discrepancy between wealthy peoples' income tax and other taxes. Until then, all you have are empty words.

No, where the money comes from is certainly relevant because you are misleadingly comparing two very different forms of taxation. Like I said before, it&#8217;s apples and oranges.

Of course investment money comes from income. Where else could it come from?

And it is a total lie to state that capital gains are &#8220;not taxed.&#8221; This statement demonstrates that you clearly have no understanding of the tax code. The fact of the matter is that long term capital gains are capped at 15% while short term gains are taxed at the same rate as income.

Both are earned. If I invest my income in a Company X&#8217;s stock, and their stock increases in value, then I earned to share in their rewards, since I took the risk to invest my hard-earned money into their company (and since I own their stock, I technically own a tiny portion of their company). Conversely, if I invest a portion of my income into Company Y by buying their stock, and their stock DECREASES in value, then equally I have earned the reality that I will be losing money.

It has been all over the news.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/04/news/economy/colvin_rich.fortune/index.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...-over-taxes/2011/10/05/gIQAZj8dOL_story.html
http://www.physiciansmoneydigest.com/your-money/Support-for-Higher-Taxes-on-the-Rich

Yes, it is disingenuous and misleading in a similar way as it would be if we were talking about the overweight in America and only mention those few people that weigh over 1,000 pounds.

The link was a WSJ blog and had absolutely nothing to do with the original argument. Starcraftzzz originally stated that &#8220;the richest 1% of Americans only pay 23% of its taxes.&#8221; Yet, the WSJ link didn&#8217;t even mention taxes. Try again.

 

I didn't make any claim, just pointed out the fallacy in yours.

But here is a link to CBO data that apportions 28% of all federal taxes to the richest 1% -- a far cry from the 38% figure the biased Heritage page you linked to indicates, as the Heritage figures only included a minority portion of all federal taxes paid.

http://158.219.33.254/publications/collections/tax/2010/all_tables.pdf

But to get an accurate picture of the amount that richest 1% actually pay, we need to adjuste the CBO data, because while the CBO apportions 57% of the corporate tax to the riches 1% (based upon the questionable premise that all corporate tax is born by the shareholders, and none by consumers of products or services in higher prices), the richest do not actually *pay* that tax -- the corporation does.

So how do we back out the portion of taxes paid by corporations that the CBO apportions to the richest 1% to get the true picture of the percentage of taxes the richest 1% actually pay?

You can find historical revenue data here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911

We know that the richest 1% were apportioned 28.1% of all federal tax liabilities. Total taxes paid in 2007, based on total revenues that year, was $2,567.7 billion. 28.1% of that total is $721.5 billion, which is the amount of total taxes paid the CBO apportioned to the top 1%, including corporate taxes.

We know the richest 1% was apportioned 57.0% of corporate taxes by the CBO. Corporate tax revenue in 2007 was $370.2 billion. 57.0% of that figure is $121.1 billion. That is the amount of corporate taxes that were apportioned by the CBO to the richest 1%.

But of course, they richest 1% did not actually pay those taxes. But with the data and figures we now have, we can calculate the total amount of taxes the richest 1% actually did pay.

We take the $721.5 billion apportioned to the richest 1% of total federal tax liaibilities, and back out the $121.1 billion of corporate taxes the CBO apportioned to them but that they did not actually pay, and we get $600.4 billion in taxes actually paid by the top 1%.

$600.4 billion is 23.4% of all taxes ($2,567.7 billion) actually paid by the richest 1%.
Which is in fact, very close to the claim made:

So after this exercise, we find that Starcraftzzz was correct after all.

Not at all. Whether it is income or FICA taxes, they are taxes that are involuntarily taken from people's income by the government.

"Of course"? Ever hear of an inheritance? Gifts? Capital gains appreciation?

I'm afraid it is you who are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the tax code.

Captial gains appreciations are not taxed until you sell the asset and "realize" the gain. Until the asset is sold, capital gains are not taxed one dime.

Thus, someone could have a million dollars from an inheritance of $500,000 which appreciated to $1,000,000 in value with capital gains, and not have spent one dime in taxes on it.

I'm afraid that once again it is you who are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the tax code.

Under the tax code, investment returns are not earned income. Income for salary and wages from work is earned income.

Not one of your sources is the administration defining rich, but commentary by the authors in the article.

The Obama administration has never defined "rich" to mean that.

Putting aside the validity of your analogy, why would that be disingenuous and misleading?

If we are talking about "fairness" the income, wealth and taxes paid by the richest 400 is right on point.

I can appreciate why you'd like to avoid it though.

It looks really bad for your position when the richeset 400 are paying a lower marginal tax rate that many or most middle class working families.

Which is freaking outrageous.

 

We've already agreed that its a good idea not to use the term 'Georgist'. Georgism, even amongst those sympathetic to its origins, is a clear cut failure (and really only a side show for aspects such as environmental economics). However, every time you attempt to disguise your true nature you give the game away through your land rant. This one has been splendid in advertising the consequences of adopting a failed Georgist approach as, by ignoring the nature of labour relations, you've emotively ranted about home owning 'thieves' even though the housing tenure decision reflects an attempt to minimise the costs associated with old age poverty (and the consequences for the labour market is an increase in economic rents derived through labour exploitation.

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

Again you show your 'innocence' of economic reality. Burrows, for example, shows that over half of British poor are home owners. We've also already seen, via Castles empirical testing of the Kemeny hypothesis, that countries with high poverty also have high home ownership rates.

Again you show your 'innocence' of economic reality. I've referred directly to empirical analysis that shows that home ownership, through the effects of labour immobility on the reservation wage, increases underpayment. By definition, that is 'economic rent'. Its just a form that you find uncomfortable as its not reliant on ranting about land.

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

The problem for you is that, unlike Georgism which is reliant on the increasingly irrelevant Long Dead Henry, other political economic schools of thought are vibrant and adapting according to empirical phenomena. 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.

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

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

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

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.

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)

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

Any of your friends or family own their house?

Emotive claptrap!

As usual you give the emotive rant and the land script to hide from reply. You've ranted about 'thieving' home owners despite the simple self-insurance role it serves. 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.

 

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?

 

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. ”

 

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

 

Here is an easy to understand version:

 

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

 

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.