Tax discrimination

Why do you think Georgists can understand the labour market when they can't even make significant remark over tax? Labour economics is beyond the prattle offered by the land ranters

 

In my opinion, we should be taxing the wealthy at war time tax rates especially for any public policies which have the effect of a war on an abstraction such as drugs. The wealthy are in a much better position to keep tabs on our elected representatives and better able to instill civic morals by example in our political-economy.

 

They can, stop telling such stupid lies.

More stupid garbage beneath comment.

 

It was a factual comment. You yourself posted a paper close to your heart that acknowledged that Georgists are even marginal over tax comment. Their influence on labour economics is zero. Come on my dear fellow, you already know the truth in it

 

I find the tax discrimination argument disingenuous at best, in light of the fact that our elected representatives are wealthier on average than they used to be.

 

Lie.

Lie.

I do indeed know the truth in it: having "influence on labor economics" is a function of conformance to the officially authorized fictions, not accurate or honest understanding.

 

Ooo, get the "I can't answer' Georgist ponce!

If you actually left long dead George you would have to admit the obvious: Georgism isn't taught, in general, because its irrelevant. Georgism isn't taught in labour economics because it has nothing to say. Crikey, even the paper you manage to reference (and there are precious few) refer to how bleedin useless Georgists really are. You think that you can repeat your nonsense time after time and, because of economic ignorance, it will be eventually be accepted. That isn't going to happen. You need to go away and learn some modern economics. Be useful!

 

There was nothing to answer, so that's just another lie on your part.

False. It isn't taught because it is TOO relevant: it shows why most of modern economics is about as useless and irrelevant as phlogiston theory or Ptolemaic epicycles.

Nope. See above.

Lie.

I have simply stated self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications. You have chosen to keep yourself ignorant by refusing to know them. That's all.

LOL! The GFC shows just how "useful" those who have devoted their feeble intellectual energies to learning "modern economics" are. You need to go away -- far away -- and read a bit of Steve Keen to try to get at least a minimal understanding of how impotent your tiresome "modern economics" ponce is.

 

We both know you can't answer. Consider something like efficiency wages, needed to understand unemployment trends. Where is the Georgist contribution? There isn't one. In comparison, both orthodox and Marxist labour economics has derived the same understanding independently (although we could argue that neoclassical economics 'borrowed' from the analysis into labour conflict)

No, you simply give an one-dimensional rant in order to hide from modern economics (and how it makes your position look childish). Perhaps you can give an example of a Georgist labour economist? (Try not to shoot yourself in the foot like when you referenced that paper which admitted that even Georgists think they're pretty much irrelevant)

 

I believe the wealthier should pay a proportional income tax simply because they are worth it.

 

We both know you can't address the issue.

Or so you assume, at any rate...

Just as there is no Georgist contribution to phlogiston theory.

That is hardly surprising, as both orthodox and Marxist economics avoid addressing the difference between capital and land.

<yawn> Georgist economics predicted the GFC. "Modern" economics did not. Your putting your fingers in your ears and blabbering "Lalalallaa I can't hear you lalalallaa..." is what really looks childish.

No, as that is pretty much a contradiction in terms, like a Marxist land economist.

You again lie.

 

Back to your one liner routine? You always resort to that when you have nothing coherent to say.

Its a mere factual statement. We can't understand unemployment trends with the usual tools. It would be foolish, for example, to suggest that we can merely refer to extra-market interference such as minimum wages and trade unions. And of course we also have numerous empirical studies that support the efficiency wage hypothesis (and why market clearing wages is not a practical result). The only debate is over the competing sources. Whilst the neoclassical approach (through shirking models) has mirrored the Marxist approach, a sociological model into fairness would derive something quite distinct!

Indeed, Georgists have no relevant labour market analysis. As you kindly demonstrated with the paper that you provided, they don't think they have much to say at all.

Of course, without an understanding of either the labour market or firm organisation, there isn't going to be any high-powered economic output. You're a victim dear chap of their uselessness

 

Why is it that alleged conservatives have any problem with progressive forms of taxation under any form of Capitalism; can we get a definitive answer, please.

 

Progressive taxation is currently necessary, because the level of spending is so high that there is no other way to get the bill paid. But it's not ideal. It makes one group of Americans more financially responsible for the nation than others.

 

Shouldn't that be a good thing, ordinarily? Would we even have a War on Drugs if the wealthy had to pay wartime tax rates for it?

 

No, not really.​

 

Why not? It would ensure that the wealthy keep better tabs on our, now wealthier, elected representatives.

 

Keeping tabs on them should be everyone's job.​

 

The wealthier are in a unique position to keep better tabs on them.

 

Convenience is not the same as responsibility.​

 

If it is anyone's responsibility, it should be more the responsibility of those better able to keep tabs on those issues.

 

The responsibility comes with citizenship. Don't want the responsibility? Renounce the citizenship.​

 

Taxes are also a responsibility; why complain about taxes instead of the public policies which engender the need for them?

 

Because the responsibility is not shared equally and cannot be shared equally so long as those public policies continue to cost more than we can raise with a fair tax.​

 

Your sig block proves you want taxes to be unfair.