Tax discrimination

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by jor, Feb 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <sigh> I have posted this before, as you know:

    “A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of the Effect of Two-Rate Property Taxes on Construction,” Tideman and Plassmann, Journal of Urban Economics, 3/00, pp. 216-47

    You will now claim that it does not say what it plainly does say.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That paper cannot be used to support a "land taxes have had very large beneficial effects in modern economies as well" conclusion". It comes out with much more specific (and mundane) analysis, concluding:

    This paper examined separately the tax impact on the number of building permits and on the value per permit for four categories of construction. The impact was found to be positive and statistically significant for the number of permits but statistically insignificant for the value per permit; the estimated overall impact on the total value of construction is positive and statistically significant.

    Surely you can do better? Try to reference something that actually claims "land taxes have had very large beneficial effects"...
     
  3. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Flat tax had positive impact on tax revenue and economic growth in countries where it was established (eastern Europe). Simple and less bureaucratic system is prefferable.

    As for marginal utility and disproportionate impact on the poor, I believe flat tax it is still better than consumption taxes or property taxes in this regard, so its not like the effect is great. Also, the poor usualy get various subsidies, welfare and other payments from the government, so in the end, the effect is largely negated.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It will shift the burden to the middle classes. Its been investigated, for example, by Skipper and Burton (2008, Ramifications of a Flat Tax—Shifting the Burden to the Middle Class, International Advances in Economic Research, Vol. 14, pp. 460-47)
     
  5. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    What I understood it to say is that given a choice in nearby localities, the locality offering the best tax deal will increase its "market share" from nearby communities.

    However how does that translate to lower employment taxes which have not spurred an equivalent boom in that sector; with no competition from a "higher tax rate" locality?
     
  6. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Correction: they pay no federal income tax. They still pay payroll taxes, and all the various excise taxes and fees. One might argue that EITC accounts for their payroll taxes, but if so then they're actually paying income taxes--their tax credits are only sufficient to cover income or payroll taxes.

    That said, the distribution of society's benefits is skewed heavily towards the top of the income scale. Wealthfare accounts for far more of the budget than welfare.
     
  7. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    People may also being paying their cable bill and cell phone bill. That they pay these bills or their retirement annuity bill (social security) or retirement medical insurance bill (medicare) does not excuse the fact they pay nothing for the separate rights and privileges that we all receive equally and are paid for unequally with income tax.

    The separate benefits that folks might enjoy in the private sector are also irrelevant. They do not belong to society, they belong to those that produce them or to whom they then choose to sell them.
     
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    How can anyone have a problem with economic forms of discrimination, in a political-economy where it is both socially acceptable and legal?
     
  9. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, of course it can. But thanks for fulfilling my prophecy that you would claim it does not say what it does say.
    Given the modest level of land tax used and the achievement of statistical significance over such a small sample, the land tax's beneficial effects were very large.
     
  10. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Five absurd fabrications from you here: the first fabrication is that SS is a retirement annuity, which of course it is not; the second is that Medicare is a retirement medical insurance plan, which of course it is not; the third is that people who do not pay federal income tax do not pay any federal taxes other than SS and Medicare, which they do, including excise taxes, tariffs, gas tax, etc.; the fourth is that we all receive rights and privileges from government equally, when government in fact confers privileges on the wealthy and privileged BY VIOLATING the rights of the rest of us; the fifth fabrication is that only income tax pays for federal government operations.
     
  11. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, and the best tax deal was a lower building tax and higher land tax.
    By increasing the land tax out of the property tax revenue constraint so that additional harmful taxes such as taxes on employment can be reduced. That was not done in this particular study.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did assume that you'd be able to blag better! Statistical significance only informs us that a rather specific (and mundane) hypothesis cannot be rejected. It says nothing about magnitude of effects and anyone with just an ounce of stats knowledge would know that your comment is completely wrong. 'Very large' effects cannot be deduced. Don't you have a paper that actually supports your position?
     
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not our fault people of wealth can afford better services than that minimum benchmark standard in our capital based market economy where economic forms of discrimination are both legal and socially acceptable?
     
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It could depend on the definition of large in any scale economy.

    If we compare across market sectors, the market for labor has not enjoyed that same phenomena as much as some local governments.
     
  15. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong. It relates sample size to strength of effect.
    You are objectively wrong. The smaller the sample, the larger the effect must be to achieve statistical significance. You are either comprehensively ignorant of statistics, or lying. Probably both.
    OK, so now you have realized that you have to move the goalposts from "evidence" to "deductive proof," which can't be done in an empirical study. Well done!
    Thanks for fulfilling my prophecy: you simply contrive some excuse or other to dismiss all evidence that is inconvenient to your false beliefs.
     
  17. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can't parse, sorry.
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're talking nonsense. Statistical significance only informs us that we can reject that the actual effect is zero. It tells us nothing about magnitude of effect. You've clearly blindly referenced a paper that refers to land, not knowing its nature and how it cannot be used in support of your claim.

    Wrong again. You're probably trying to refer to the t distribution. Here the critical value increases but that only reflects the lack of precision in smaller samples. It has nothing to do with size of effects. It does produce a greater confidence interval but that reflects greater uncertainty and also of course says the true effect could be much lower.

    A nonsense blagging attempt. You've chosen a relatively mundane paper that cannot be used in support of your position. I doubt you've even read it.

    I just want one paper to support the "land taxes have had very large beneficial effects" claim. The paper blindly provided makes no claims about 'very large beneficial effects'.
     
  19. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You've proved you'll say anything to evade the facts of economics. No surprises there!
    Nope. You clearly do not know what statistical significance is or how it is determined.
    Flat false.
    You've clearly decided to just say anything that pops into your head.
    Thank you for admitting that I am right and you are lying.
    I really only referenced it to show that no matter what evidence is presented, you have to contrive some sort of excuse to dismiss and ignore it. I know perfectly well that you can never countenance any facts that prove you wrong.
    It doesn't "claim" them. It demonstrates them.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly you're happy typing utter drivel. To suggest statistical significance informs us of size of effect is ignorant. To suggest small samples can somehow be used to suggest effects are actually bigger is cretinous. There's no debate in this. You've only described that you're prepared to blindly copy and paste an article that you don't understand in order to make nonsensical claims that only describe a break from 'statistical' reality.

    You did make me laugh though. Usually you just use your "you lie" script to dodge. Today you've openly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.
     
  21. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Clearly you have nothing relevant, informative or interesting to say, and are happy to say it at tedious length.
    No, to claim it doesn't is ignorant.
    No, to deny that small samples must show larger effects to reach statistical significance is cretinous.
    Right: you're wrong, you know it, you don't care, and you've proved all three repeatedly.
    <yawn> Is this simple enough for you to understand?

    "Statistical significance can be considered to be the confidence one has in a given result. In a comparison study, it is dependent on the relative difference between the groups compared, the amount of measurement and the noise associated with the measurement."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statis...noise_ratio_conceptualisation_of_significance

    "relative difference" = size of effect.
    Therefore you = full of $#!+. QED.
    Idiocy. How horrid it must be to be you, or to know you.
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm still laughing to be fair. Its a rare event to actually get you to say anything. Here your mistake is astonishingly inaccurate that we've managed to cut through your usual bluster and blag without effort. You won't find any source that says 'significance in a smaller sample means the effect is larger'. The very idea is cretinous. Look at, for example, how the t-stat contributes to the confidence interval. Its purely about greater imprecision in the estimate. You'll find that many journals will insist on more than just reference to statistical significance. That can only test hypothesis. Policy conclusions, for example, require reference to the estimated coefficients. A statistically significant variable can have a marginal impact on the dependent variable, making the estimated relationship only interesting in terms of testing of specific theory. See, for example, the Journal of Socio-Economics.

    I loved this quote on 2 grounds. First, your use of wikipedia (as you attempt to desperately hide from the very basic error that you've made). Couldn't you use Maddala for extra effect? Second, you're just hammering home you don't have a clue what significance shows.

    And you finish with a playground putdown attempt. Brilliant! Sorry chum, won't work. I'm not going to let you off the hook so easily. Your error is just so comical
     
  23. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It could depend on the definition of large in any scale economy.
     
  24. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People eligible for government benefits shouldn't pay income tax, because by paying it they'll just need the government assistance more.

    Honestly, they get so little from society, however, that their burden should be negligible. Welfare pales in comparison with Wealthfare, after all. Virtually everything the government does ends up serving the rich, except the ill-funded means-tested entitlement programs... which the rich want to end.

    If someone can genuinely produce something in a vacuum, using none of the resources they have taken from society, nor using any labor fro others in society, and selling entirely without the support of society (including society's public roads)... well, then maybe there would be an argument that society has no claim on their profits. Otherwise, they owe society something, usually quite a lot. As a practical matter, no one gets rich in a vacuum--you just can't do it without interacting with other people during production.
     
  25. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, we could be lowering our tax burden merely by solving for a poverty of money in money based markets.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page