Tax discrimination

What is a "fair" tax?

 

Fair means unbiased, equitable. An equal tax would be fair. Not practical, but fair.​

 

You have no means to understand issues of equity. Long Dead George ensures that

 

What do you mean by "equal" under our republican form of Government?

 

equal adj \ˈē-kwəl\
Definition of EQUAL

(1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value​

 

You have no means to do anything but lie, troll, bloviate, lie, sneer, and lie. Your need to evade the facts ensures that.

 

Your sig block proves you know perfectly well that an equal tax would not be fair. Your sig block proves you know perfectly well that the only way to make taxation fair is to recover the value government spending creates, in order to pay for it. Your sig block proves that you know perfectly well the only way to do that is through a tax on land value, and your sig block proves you oppose that form of taxation precisely and exclusively because it IS fair.

 

That Georgism is pretty much irrelevant was supported by the reference you yourself gave. An out-of-date stance, only loved by internet ranters, that has no means to understand the labour market or the firm. You know all of this (and that's why you respond with your "lie" script).

 

No, you are just lying again. One liners suffice to refute you, so why bother writing more?

That is a lie. You are lying.

More accurately, YOU can't understand unemployment trends with YOUR usual tools.

More to the point, it would be dishonest to suggest that those are particularly relevant to the theory you so absurdly purport to be critiquing.

Because it is so meaningless that it is consistent with just about any plausible result.

Because you refuse to debate better theories that do not embrace the errors of "modern" economics.

Indeed, you have nothing honest or factual to say about Georgists.

You again kindly demonstrate that in order to slag geoist analysis, you have no choice but to lie.

It is anti-geoist liars who have no way to understand the labor market, as they have to refuse to know facts about land, and how the Law of Rent determines wages.

Yes, well, the GFC demonstrates the exact usefulness of your "high-powered" economic output...

 

How would that work in the case of our War on Drugs; can you define equal in the context of that public policy?

 

You again lie.

Like Milton Friedman?

Why do you always have to lie such stupid, evil filth that the stench and putridness of it makes my monitor go cloudy?

Oh. Right.

YOu again prove you have no choice but to tell stupid lies.

<yawn> That's the ticket: when you have to lie, protest that your lies are being identified as such!

How horrid it must be to be evil, lying filth.

 

You're still doing your one liner routine because you have nothing to say.

A childish response. Efficiency wages arguably came from Marxism (although I personally would argue its more complicated than that). You won't like that. Long Dead George wasn't involved. Indeed, you have zero understanding of the labour market. The rest of your one-line dodge was purely motivated by dodging from that fact.

 

Truth dead chap isn't your friend, that's why you have to ignore all modern economics

A monetarist? Chortle, chortle, you do still make me laugh. Did you even bother to understand monetarism (it was a complete failure but worth a look for the laugh). He did admittedly achieve some relevancy with the negative income tax. That would involve labour economic analysis though and therefore it would be quite beyond your comprehension

 

You know that you have to continue to lie about a cherry-picked quote. You can't do anything else, obviously.

Already proved a stupid lie, as we've established.

It's your anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-truth, anti-logic, anti-economic shyte that is a script, as already proved. It's always the same, like a mantra that you have to chant to distract yourself from the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil.

 

What little of truth there is in modern economics is of the meaningless tautological variety, not the empirical science variety.

Thank you for agreeing that you lied again.

Content-free bloviation, as usual.

 

You won't like anything that can understand economic relations. By definition, it will assuredly show how backward thinking Georgism really is. It amused me though that you'd use Friedman's name, despite it necessarily leading to macroeconomic and labour debates you cannot be involved in. Best stick to Long Dead George dear boy! Its safer...

 

The context is mathematical: 4 = 4 ; 72 = 72 ; etc​

 

In other words, our War on Drugs should be incarcerating an equal proportion of both rich and poor; and letting the rest go free once our prison quota is met?

 

um.... no.​

 

I thought you claimed to subscribe to this notion of equality?

 

From a dictionary definition, you concluded I would agree to lock people up based on their income rather than whether they committed a crime?​

 

I am referring to equal rates of incarceration for similar crimes, as a form of equality.

 

You think that equality should be enforced?​

 

You are the one who provided a standardized definition of the term; equality. How subjective are your moral values if you are willing to resort to special pleading?

 

It's 'special pleading' to recognize one word doesn't represent all relationships?​