Fairness

You lie about lying in order to hide from your fibbing. You well know that you don't care about the practicalities of tax. You're only ever going to rant about land tax. Now we know that poverty traps will always be a danger. We just have to refer to the interaction of tax and benefit systems (and there's no need to make red herrings about 'favoured tax systems' as there is no dogma involved). It is therefore basic sense (if you care about poverty of course, rather than just coming out with a Georgist cultism) to refer to effective rates. We'd then supplement that with other concepts such as using the social wage to provide further information over how taxes and the income distribution are related.

 

Thanks for confirming that you always have to lie about what I have plainly written. YOU are the one who always has to rant about land tax; and you do so, as now, whenever I post, whether or not I have even mentioned it.

Under your favored income tax system. Not under a system that does not burden economic activity.

There is indisputably dogma involved: yours. You refuse to consider any tax that does not burden production "practical," and spew a tsunami of sneers, derision, lies and invective -- but never any actual argument -- at any mention of land tax.

Only when you are married to taxes that are inherently unfair and economically destructive, as you are.

 

Again you go for a deliberate red herring. There has been no 'favoured income tax' mentioned. There has only been reference to the poverty trap which isn't specific to income taxes (and it would be stupidity to suggest otherwise). You ignore these issues and focus purely on an emotional rant where you blubber on about the 'evil'. By ignoring these issues you of course allow your dogma to dominate such that you ignore the practicalities of tax systems. Just another example of the irrelevance of Georgists

 

Again you lie your head off.

Bull$#!+. You attack, deride and dismiss any alternative to income tax.

You appear to be the pure, distilled essence of dishonesty.

It is actually quite specific to income taxes and other taxes that burden economic activity in similar ways. Yet you ALWAYS deride, dismiss and sneer at -- but never actually offer any factual or logical argument against -- alternatives that don't burden economic activity.

You invariably lie about what I have plainly written. Invariably.

You have no choice but to lie, and so you lie. Always.

What would you call a system of institutionalized injustice that impoverishes billions of people and kills many millions of them EVERY YEAR?

As you know, but always have to lie about, it is precisely because I am totally focused on the practicalities of tax systems that I don't care to waste mental effort trying to tweak an inherently unfixable system to make it tolerable.

ROTFL!! Just another example of you gratuitously slagging -- but never actually offering any factual or logical argument against -- a tax system that inherently deletes the poverty traps and other problems you incessantly whine about.

 

I don't obsess over any tax. Such a stance would be idiotic.

As usual you go for rant rather than make reasoned comment. The closest you got to comment was "[its] quite specific to income taxes and other taxes that burden economic activity in similar ways". That was of course nonsense. A poverty trap only requires an effective rate to be near or exceed 100%. That isn't income tax specific and, as I remarked, it would be quite stupid to suggest that it was

 

Everyone here knows that you obsess over land tax: you can't permit any factual statement about it to go unridiculed, un-sneered-at, undismissed.

That quite accurately describes your obsession with deriding, dismissing, ridiculing -- but never actually criticizing with valid logical, factual, historical or economic arguments -- land taxation.

As always, you go for false, idiotic and dishonest accusations rather than engage in reasoned discussion.

It's indisputable. If a tax doesn't burden the economic activity of those who are vulnerable to poverty traps, it can't create a poverty trap.

That's just objectively false, and ASSUMES any tax must be levied on earned income, or some similar aspect of economic activity. An effective tax rate of 100% on luxury consumer goods like jewelry or high-powered sports cars, for example, does not create any poverty trap. An effective tax rate of 100% on natural resource rents does not create any poverty trap. You are just objectively wrong. As usual.

What's really quite stupid is to suggest that it isn't specific to taxes that burden the economic activity of those who are vulnerable to poverty traps, like income tax, general sales tax, VAT, etc., but NOT A LAND TAX.

 

Get it right now, I am but dismissive of those that do obsess. We've seen several time with your good self how such an obsession hinders the ability to consider tax systems with any practical sense.

The single tax notion of Long Dead George is, as you well know, utter drivel. Anyone that promotes otherwise is deliberately avoiding reality to push an inane dogma. We know that actual tax systems will have multiple taxes and we know that, given welfare systems are but rational, the risks of poverty and unemployment traps should always be considered.

You made a very basic error (i.e. it was somehow specific to income taxes), demonstrating only that you haven't really considered tax issues to any great depth.

This is just repetition of your error. We only need to consider how effective tax rates change with the income distribution. There is no need to refer to income taxes. There is only the need to consider the overall impact of tax and welfare systems.

Here you're only showing you don't know what an effective tax rate is. You best go back to "you lie you lying liar" script as everytime you actually refer to tax you put your foot in it

We do not and cannot have a single tax. It would be irrational and, let's be honest, stupidity run amok

 

No, you are obsessively dismissive of facts about taxation that prove you wrong.

<yawn>

I well know that your "Long Dead George" drivel is drivel.

Inevitable absence of fact and logic noted.

The presence of multiple taxes is irrelevant, welfare systems are anything but rational, and poverty and unemployment traps are artifacts of the wrong-headed taxes you favor.

You continue to bloviate without content.

This is just repetition of your inability to muster facts or logic.

LOL! You again assume the only measure of effective tax rate is wrt income! You are thinking only in terms of income tax even as you deny it.

There is a need for you to evade the fact that that is what you ARE referring to, exclusively.

While dismissing, ridiculing and refusing to consider economically superior taxes that don't have poverty traps...

No, I'm showing that I know too well what YOU think it is.

That may be true. And perhaps on your planet, it would be relevant.

There is one expression you are not allowed to use, Reiver, and that expression is, "Let's be honest."

 

Golly gosh, every comment you make could actually be about you. Do you think a "no, my daddy is bigger than yours" rant is going to be effective? Best think again!

As I said, you've again made some drastic errors. You haven't understood how effective rates are applied to the individual and you've made ludicrous claim that poverty traps are somehow income tax specific. In reality, we know that its just good sense to consider poverty traps. We also know that Georgist rant isn't going to be much cop as that single tax bobbins that you and your homogeneous George cultists (in)effectively crow about has zero relevance to modern economics

 

Translation: I've understood it too well, and exposed you for a lying ignoramus.

It's perfectly correct in the modern context where income tax dominates.

But it's much better sense not to create them in the first place, by using taxes that don't create them -- such as the land value tax that you obsessively rant against while never actually offering any substantive factual or logical criticism of.

Well, at this point you have exactly two options, Reiver: you can provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I advocate a Georgist single tax on land value, or you can admit that you have merely been telling stupid lies again. Failure to do the first will constitute doing the second. And you will not be doing the first.

As for the relevance of land rent recovery to modern economics, there are at least a few dozen eminent western economists, including four (count 'em, FOUR) Nobel laureates, who disagree with you:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/tideman-nicolaus_open-letter-to-gorbachev.html

 

No need to rant. Instead please look up how effective rates are applied to the individual. We could then make some progress as you could then type with at least some knowledge over how tax systems operate.

There's no debate in my comment (its a simple truth that documents the severity of your basic error and tendency to rant aimlessly because it doesn't blubber on about George): a poverty trap is not income tax specific. Bleedin obvious but I reckon I will have to say it a few more times as you hide from the reality.

How easily you fib! I have no problem with land taxes. I do have a problem with the stupid position that a single land tax is possible. I also have a problem with those that obsess over land taxes in order to hide from modern economics.

You tacitly imply the single tax rot through the comments you make (again after again after again). Take this vacuous comment:

"What's really quite stupid is to suggest that it isn't specific to taxes that burden the economic activity of those who are vulnerable to poverty traps, like income tax, general sales tax, VAT, etc., but NOT A LAND TAX."

We know that a practical tax policy will refer to multiple taxes. We also know that effective rates will increase significantly once we factor in welfare policy. We therefore know that poverty traps will be a consideration with every possible tax scheme, making your previous claims look decidedly vacuous.

I already know the quotes you homogeneous lot spew time after time. Any mention of land and you crow Georgist claptrap. The reality of it is simple: Georgist cultists have no understanding of labour or the firm. To suggest they can understand economic result is therefore silliness run amok

 

Lie.

OK, so you admit that you can't provide a quote to support your claims. Thank you for agreeing that you were just telling stupid lies again.

You are just so not worth even one second of my time.

 

Its blatantly obvious what you're up to: rant about land tax when you know that it can only represent a minor aspect of an overall tax system. That then leads to the terrible mistakes, such as the absurd notion that poverty traps are somehow income tax specific.

You've got no answers as, when you try to respond, you put your foot in it further. Not understanding how effective rates are applied to the individual was an example (of many).

 

I haven't ranted about land tax; you are just following your anti-land-tax rant script.

You again lie about what I plainly wrote.

No matter how many times I prove you wrong, no matter how many times I prove you lied, you just follow your same anti-justice, anti-liberty, anti-truth, anti-economic rant script.

 

Obvious is also subjective!

In EVERY type of personal consumption on Earth, whatever the prices of the particular consumption might be, none of these prices are determined with a 'progressive pricing system' or 'fairness system'. In the USA, no matter what the 310 million people wish to consume, no matter if it's a carton of milk or a polo shirt or an automobile or a property or education, all 310 million Americans are going to pay the same prices. But for some social or political or other reason, when it comes to these same 310 million Americans consuming the federal government...which they do today at the rate of $3.5 TRILLION...at the rate of $11,290 per citizen...suddenly 1/3rd can pay nothing, 1/3rd can pay something, and 1/3rd can pay the lion's share of federal government expenditures...

 

You forgot, "moral," "economic" and "factual."

<sigh> I've already proved such claims are false, absurd, stupid, and grotesquely dishonest. When different people buy a carton of milk, they all get pretty much the same amount and quality of milk. When different people "consume" the services of the federal government, they get very, very different amounts of benefit. For example, if you are a poor black man consuming the services of the federal government, you get thrown into prison for innocently going about your business of providing herbal medicines to your clients. But if you are a rich, greedy, thieving, privileged, evil, white parasite consuming the services of the federal government, you get billions of dollars shovelled into your pockets in return for nothing.

You just want the poor black man the federal government throws into prison for no justifiable reason to pay the same amount of tax as the rich, greedy, thieving, privileged, evil, white parasite the federal government gives billions of dollars to for doing nothing.

That's just f*cking evil, Old Man.

Evil. Evil. Evil. Evil. Evil.

 

That's not possible. You follow an one dimensional land tax rant. Even if I was a rabid conservative who didn't bother with sound economic comment I'd be able to out-trump your position. In reality I merely go for the logical: valid reference to modern economics when referring to economic issues. I wouldn't have made your basic mistake over the poverty trap, nor would I have made your error over effective rates as applied to the individual. You keep on ranting though. It still does entertain!

Now that 'we' know that the poverty trap applies to any practical tax policy. How would you say that the poverty and unemployment trap differ? (Careful now, its a trap)

 

True. For someone not interested in making objective tax comparisons over equity the use of effective rates the use of the term 'obvious' would be blinding.

 

It has happened repeatedly.

Content = 0. You follow a one-dimensional dismiss-land-tax script.

You're jabbering silly rot again.

You follow a script of trying to change the subject rather than address the issues. Right.

You haven't identified any such mistake.

You haven't identified any such error.

But only as long as you define "practical" to mean, "similar to the current system, or even worse."

They are different in their proximate causes and direct effects.... but their root causes -- the stupid, vicious, evil lies of of the stupid, vicious, evil filth who oppose just and economically efficient taxation systems -- and ultimate effects (unnecessary poverty and economic stagnation) are quite similar.

 

Perhaps in the Georgist bubble. Back in reality we see your need for emotiveness and an innate hatred of modern economics for not 'playing ball'. Here, with reference to fairness, you've assumed the 'its evil' huff and puff wouldn't let you down. It was a poor assumption. It requires even more high powered economic analysis, otherwise it comes across as childish foot-stamping tantrum. And that has led to you showing your true colours, where you make ridiculous claims inconsistent with basic economics. I wouldn't have a problem with that if you were at least critiquing orthodox analaysis (e.g. The optimal tax literature) with something more heterodox in tone. You're not; its just the land obsessed drone that you give monotonously.

I believe you continuously call folk liars, no matter the conversation, because of the traits you fall foul of. I have made no support of the 'current sysem'. I'm more than happy to see a radical over-haul of the system. However, do you honestly think failed Georgism (incapable of understanding economic result and, because of it, a source of frustration that encourages an emotive rant that makes hell and fire preachers look reasonable) is going to play a part? That is optimism gone crazy!

This doesn't say anything (probably a good idea mind you as it was a set up). The unemployment trap can be more straightforwardly applied to income tax analysis. This reflects the common useage of the neoclassical labour supply model, with the unemployment trap generated by a non-linearity that creates a corner solution (negating the impact of marginal changes in wage rates). By describing such analysis we would only advertise the severity of your previous error, where you made ludicrous claims that the poverty trap was somhow income tax specific.

 

You can objectively compare the body weights of ten different people but there will be no meaning or substance in this comparison...they're just numbers.

To use your 'fairness' definition, you will believe it's unfair for all people to pay the same sales tax rates? You will only look at 'effective sales tax rates' and claim unfair!

IMO, if every citizen MUST support local and state governments via sales/excise taxes, including federal excise taxes, with all citizens paying the identical rates, then every citizen can also support their federal government in the identical fashion regarding federal income taxes...

 

If I was interested in, say, how body weight of parents impacts on the eating habits of the young'uns then I'd use such info. Of course that would refer to behavioural analysis requiring hypothesis testing. We have no need for that here. We can refer to raw data to demonstrate opportunity. An effective rate approaching 100%, for example, shows none exists.

I referred to the correct way of comparing between individuals. That will necessarily refer to tax systems (and how they also interact with other sources of income). We have to be careful with reference to specific tax as there are numerous other issues at play. Sales tax, for example, tend to be regressive. However, to derive an overall understanding of equity (which also interlinks with efficiency concerns), we have to consider elements such as positive/negative externalities.

You're just applying your own dogma brand. Its of no more value than the utopian that refers to God to justify exceedingly high top marginal rates of tax

 

Deciding on personal income tax contributions for all citizens is not a 'behavioral analysis'. I have absolutely no problem with the current tax rate system in which those with higher incomes are paying a greater percentage of the tax receipts. I also have no problem with the top rates slightly increasing...with the caveat 'if necessary'. But I have a huge problem when 1/3rd of the people don't pay a dime of federal income taxes. Just as increasing the top tax rates a couple of percent IS NOT going to bring in tax income windfalls and solve any problem whatsoever, the same applies to collecting 'something' from the 1/3rd who currently don't pay a dime. My perspective on this IS NOT mathematical; it is philosophical. And within 'philosophical' is fairness. I want those 1/3rd of so-called Americans to take the time, by a certain date each year, to write out a check for $50 and mail it to the federal government. I want every US citizen to receive an invoice from the federal government each year stating what their 'fair share' of government costs belong to them; this year it is $11,290 per citizen. These people must be involved in the process of deficit spending and debt and government expenditures and they cannot be involved when society refuses to involve them! You can cling to your effective tax rates, and enable 1/3rd of the USA to be uninvolved, to not financially support their government , to not vote, etc. For the financial health of the nation, for the societal health of the nation, stop with all the 'group' mentality and approach the management of the nation AS IF all US citizens have a horse in the race...

 

Indeed. I was making that very distinction. The 'they're just numbers' charge really requires some reference to the need to utilise a more advanced empirical methodology (as illustrated by my example). We don't have that here.

As that makes no reference to marginal rates of tax that isn't particularly interesting. You're essentially adopting a comparison irrelevant to any useful economic comparison.

You're applying no useful criteria in making these opinion choices. Its no different to someone hating the rich and demanding a severe tax penalty.

But it isn't economics as you have no valid means to compare burden.

The point is simple: I don't give a rat's arse what you think is fair or unfair. I just want you to make valid comparison. Note also that those who do not make valid comparisons also ignore the real problems faced: I.e. An economy with high poverty, low social mobility and an underclass problem that is rarely faced by developed country.

Group mentality? That doesn't make any sense at all as I've referred to how individuals can be compared. You can't make any evaluation of fairness (at least with any resemblance of sound economic comment) without first achieving that basic requirement

 

No, in fact. Your errors are too basic to require Georgist analysis. Simple awareness of basic physical realities suffices.

You wouldn't know which direction to look in to see reality from where you are.

Contentless crap. As always. Evil is the appropriate object of hatred, and the evil effects of "modern" economics are blatantly apparent, from the constant harping for government austerity measures to the multi-trillion-dollar giveaways to rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic filth.

I do not shrink from identifying evil, while you seek to rationalize, justify and excuse it. If more people were like me rather than you, a lot less evil would be done in the world.

No, it doesn't. That's just you ignoring and dismissing facts you cannot address -- again.

None of which you have ever identified, or ever will.

I identify the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications. You refuse to know those facts and hate their implications, so you have to contrive some excuse to ignore and dismiss them. Simple.

But in fact, I only say that someone has lied when they have lied. Like you just did.

Another lie.

As long as it doesn't include significant land taxation, and therefore has no fundamental effect on who bears the tax burden or who gets the benefit of the spending it finances.

See how you always have to obsess on Georgism? I'm not a Georgist, and I'm not talking about Georgism other than for your instruction in history.

Anyway, I don't know what you incorrectly imagine you mean by "failed Georgism," but the significant land rent recovery I advocate has succeeded brilliantly everywhere it has ever been tried.

Land rent recovery plays a large part in tax reform, or the reform fails. It's that simple.

Lie.

As we have already agreed, I made no such claim, and you are just lying.