US to have highest corporate tax rate in the world in 30 days

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Hoosier8, Mar 1, 2012.

  1. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like Newtonian mechanics... Sure, it's been superseded by more complete understanding. But it still works (*)(*)(*)(*) well for most practical purposes.
    An even that did not, in fact, happen, as proved by the increase in land values over the same period, which far outstripped GDP.
    Oh, well, only 20% of GDP, or quite a bit more than total US federal tax revenue. Hardly even seems worth mentioning, does it? Certainly no one need concern themselves that it is being given to landowners in return for nothing.
    Though without ever actually having been refuted....
    Again, the claim lacking supporting evidence. What actually happened was that governments began interceding, massively, on behalf of the landless to rescue them from the facts that Henry George identified.
    ROTFL!! A claim that Blaug made rather prematurely in 2000, and is now laughable for, in Dr. Strangelove's delicious phrase, "reasons which should be all too obvious at this moment."
    But only to those whose careers and incomes are bolstered by laughing at it, loudly though hollowly, on every possible occasion....
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting angle here. You like to play the 'its an indisputable law' angle but we both know that Georgism is, in terms of economic analysis, very much irrelevant. Why do you think that's the case? Is it a modern economic conspiracy?
     
  3. geofree

    geofree Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The land value tax is certainly capable of funding an honest government, because honest government activities increase land values by more then they cost to implement. This is basic mathematics, a skill which you and Mark Blaug desperately need to brush up on.

    Can the land value tax fully fund a corrupt government which uses public debt as an excuse to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars from tax payers to banking interests? Probably not.

    A corrupt government can easily cost over twice as much to fund as a honest government. But government doesn’t have to be bogged down with corruption, which is something Mark Blaug (as well as yourself) is apparently incapable of comprehending.
     
  4. geofree

    geofree Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    For the most part, I only support taxes on economic rents. To the degree that corporations receive income from economic rents, they should pay heavy taxes on those rents.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

    I guess that I should also add that I’m no fan of corporations to begin with, because of the special rights (privileges) they receive from government. Why should corporations be allowed to do what private individuals cannot do?
     
  5. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    +rep!!!!!!!!!
     
  6. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, well that's the same "reality" of profoundly sophisticated econometric research that in 1993 totaled up the value of all corporate-owned land in the USA... and found it was NEGATIVE.
    "Nonsense"? The nonsense is self-evidently being peddled by the people who can claim to be measuring land value, and find it is negative.
    You always have to lie. ALWAYS. Most homeowners would be better off under LVT because land value owned is more unequally distributed than income, and the required universal individual exemption (or, second best, equivalent citizens' dividend) makes LVT even more progressive. The great majority of people would be markedly better off, including most homeowners and virtually ALL homeowners who own only the land under their own dwellings. The landless bottom 30% would be enormously better off. Only the top few percent of landowners would be worse off.
    "Attack"? Recover.
    Just another stupid lie from you!
     
  7. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IMO corporate limited liability is a privilege that should either not exist or be heavily taxed. It is too easy for top execs and big shareholders to pull money out of corporations and leave the taxpayer holding the bag, as we have seen everywhere in the financial industry in the last four years.
     
  8. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think what happens is, corporations are taxed, and then "pass along" the expenses of said taxation to consumers by raising the prices of their products. This doesn't hurt corporations nearly as much as it hurts consumers. Thus, corporate taxes actually widen the economic gap between the rich and the poor.

    The same is probably also somewhat true of income taxation.
     
  9. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On its worst day, the idea of a single land value tax is approximately 1/10 as cretinous as the least cretinous post you have ever made.
    If we want to avoid knowing all the myriad facts that prove you wrong.
    Unemployment and poverty traps can only arise when people are forcibly deprived of their liberty to use land, and its rent is pocketed by idle landowners. Recovery of publicly created rent for public purposes and benefit, together with restoration of the individual right to liberty via a uniform, universal individual land tax exemption, makes unemployment and poverty effectively voluntary choices.
    No, your source just repeats stupid garbage, like land rent being only 6% of GDP.
    Content = 0
    Obtaining sufficient revenue by recovering implicit rents does not mean "hammering homeowners." That is merely a lie chanted by anti-LVT hate propagandists.
    No supporting evidence. As usual.
    OTC, you have a desperate, intense, almost sexual need to refer to Georgism. You can scarcely post without using the word, even when no one else is doing so.
    By ignoring central facts about those taxes? Sure it is. That's why we have the idiotic and insane tax system we have.
     
  10. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That depends on the type of corporate tax. Corporate income tax, according to microeconomic theory, does not have this effect, as it does not alter production decisions. However, what happens in reality is that firms devise ways of making money for top execs and shareholders WITHOUT making taxable profits.
    Income tax is mainly a way of making sure the most productive of the poor cannot accumulate the assets needed to offer competition to the rich.
     
  11. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Someone, you will never get a constructive or honest response from Reiver. Don't even bother trying.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I noted that you dodged and just gave your already discredited script. Can you respond to my request (I don't mind if the other Georgist wannabes want to pip in to help you):

    You like to play the 'its an indisputable law' angle but we both know that Georgism is, in terms of economic analysis, very much irrelevant. Why do you think that's the case? Is it a modern economic conspiracy?
     
  13. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    See my previous response to Someone.
    No, it is not. It is irrelevant in only two respects: economists' influence on those currently holding political power, and publications in peer-reviewed economics journals.
    Economics is the one scientific discipline whose objectively correct findings are inconvenient to the financial interests of the wealthy, powerful and privileged. You do the math.
     
  14. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

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


    God help us when China outgrows her training bra.​
     
  15. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    funny, do the prices go down when they get tax breaks?

    kinda like if were all required to by auto insurance and wear seat belts the rates will go down, lol, don't believe everything the corps tell you... like people, they can lie
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given economics is characterised by numerous vibrant political economic schools of thought capable of being published in dozens of peer reviewed journals, why do you think Georgists are so incapable of influencing the debate through publication in respected source?
     
  17. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's very simple, and I have explained it to you before: what Georgists are saying is well established fact, and not controversial among people who actually understand economics, so it is no more publishable in peer-reviewed journals than an elaborate research paper demonstrating that F = MA. There's nothing new in it. These established and indisputable facts are just ignored because they are inconvenient to the financial interests of the privileged and powerful who own or control things like governments, popular media, academe, and peer-reviewed economics journals.

    Purveyors of stupid Marxist claptrap, by contrast, can always find some new way to be wrong, and as Marxism is too idiotic to be a genuine threat to privilege (see the instructive fate of the USSR), the wealthy, privileged and powerful encourage and even fund it as a useful distraction to those who know there is something terribly unjust in capitalism, but haven't figured out what it is. You know: the people you devote so much effort to keeping ignorant of land economics.
     
  18. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is fascinating. Could you give a little more detail with regards these 'financial interests' which control these hundreds of independent economic journals?
     
  20. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What don't you like about geoist capitalism?

    By the way, I know that many geoists say that geoism is somehow incompatible with capitalism, but it is now. We can regulate land renting without abolishing private enterprise. I am actually a supporter of society being miniarchist capitalist, with the exception of land, for which I am in more support of regulation.

    Basically, the cause of the housing bubble, which is a huge part of why the current pending DEPRESSION that WILL OCCUR within a couple or few years from now (it's pretty much unavoidable now), is the exact opposite of geoism, consequentially. The cause of the housing bubble was because land was artificially easy to acquire. Geoism would make it more difficult for people to acquire vast amounts of land.
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like? The problem is its irrelevance to modern capitalism. Can you help them and refer to a source that supports the Georgist position? They go all shy all of a sudden!
     
  22. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My reasoning for it is all axiomatic. Now, I'm not exactly a "georgist" so to speak, more like, a "geoist" (which is a lot more general of a term than "georgist", which refers to the theories of one man).

    My position is that we should go to anarcho-capitalism WITH THE EXCEPTION of:

    1. Regulation on land use to make it so that land is both affordable to almost everyone, and

    2. We might perhaps need a miniarchist domestic law enforcement, and

    3. We need to sometimes fund education/training so that someone that has both no money and little marketable skill can feasably obtain a marketable skill/knowledge.

    I don't even believe in publicly funding the military.
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So nothing to support your position but dogma? Not interested, sorry!
     
  24. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Logic =/= dogma. It's pretty obvious that making land artificially easy to acquire large amounts of will cause a murdering-to-the-economy land bubble.

    Making it harder to acquire large amounts of land, but easier to obtain a small amount of land so that almost everyone can have a place to live without going homeless, will do the opposite. Freeing resources and money from Big Land Rent will allow said money to be pumped back into the rest of the economy and fuel it to grow.

    The only question now is, how to we go about "making it harder to acquire large amounts of land, but easier to obtain a small amount of land so that almost everyone can have a place to live"?
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A logical position would be able to refer to key political economic support. You can't. Sorry but you're wasting my time. Unless you can support your position you have nothing more powerful than a David Icke-esque reference to lizard people
     

Share This Page