Do conservatives believe in Income Inequality? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14637151
I mean, after all, you don't seem to mind reiterating what was in the New Nation article (which I'm sure your fellow POFOers have already read, or did they?), so why should this be an exception.




I'm sure some of them did. You didn't. And let me tell you son that arguing about an article you have not read is just stupid and will inevitably lead you to post an idiotic mistake like you just did.

You are becoming tiresome. I do not relish shooting fish in barrels.



https://newrepublic.com/article/97448/honest-conservative-take-income-inequality
#14637176
Drlee wrote::lol:

I'm sure some of them did. You didn't. And let me tell you son that arguing about an article you have not read is just stupid and will inevitably lead you to post an idiotic mistake like you just did.

You are becoming tiresome. I do not relish shooting fish in barrels.



https://newrepublic.com/article/97448/honest-conservative-take-income-inequality

Image
#14637237
Drlee wrote:

I'm sure some of them did. You didn't. And let me tell you son that arguing about an article you have not read is just stupid and will inevitably lead you to post an idiotic mistake like you just did.

You are becoming tiresome. I do not relish shooting fish in barrels.



https://newrepublic.com/article/97448/honest-conservative-take-income-inequality


So if it's an idiotic mistake as you claim, why didn't you post what YOU thought post-modernism was. Once again you use the progressive tactic of diversion. The issue here isn't the New Republic article. The issue here is whether or not you can show my wrong use of post-modernism by defining it yourself.

You contradict yourself: I don't know of many people that tire of shooting fish in a barrel. I do, however, know people who tire of shooting themselves in the foot.

Also, upon reviewing our exchange over the last few posts, thank you for agreeing with me that government is more than workforce and deficits.

As you recall, I presented you an example of selective focus, through reducto ad absurdum (the drunken driving schtick) which you labeled idiotic. So if the example (connoted by the phrase "This is like..." Again, elementary English.) is idiotic, so is the thing it is an example of, as both use the same reasoning Put simply, you were calling your own arguments idiotic.

Further, as I recall, you rejected my piece on Obama paying her employees less because it was an opinion piece. Your New Republic piece was also an opinion piece denoted by An Honest Conservative's Take On...(which is right there in the URL)

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/d ... -something

So one opinion piece rejected, means you reject all opinion pieces. Your rules, not mine. Intellectual Honesty rears its head again
Last edited by so_crates on 31 Dec 2015 19:39, edited 6 times in total.
#14637248
MEAGAIN wrote: Have you ever considered why Switzerland,Norway,etc are able to be socialist nations?

No, because they aren't.
It is because of the once strong Republic of America gave them protection from invasions and wars. Without America all these natiosn would have been in the dust bins of history from invasions of their neighbors. Protection of strong capitalistic nation is why they were successful.

Nonsense. Switzerland had already been neutral and successful for centuries before the USA even existed. And Norway wasn't protected much by the USA when Germany invaded it, were they?
Europe and especailly scandinavia are now full of violence and crime.

Yes, but nothing like they were before they became modern secular democracies.
People in their streets threatening the mostly white nationals with death and idol worship. First time in history even cops won't go into many of their hoods.

False. Until a few hundred years ago, most of those countries didn't even have police forces in most areas.
Now that Americsa has been invaded and taken over by comnmunist rich liberals

Now those I would like to see....
the free world is under barbaric invasions and on a suicide mission.

But not in the way you imagine.
I haven't voted for almost 2 decades imo all of them are warmongering elitist. I'm not a memebr of any organized religion and don't go to any church so I'm anti religious and anti political dictator. I only entertain myself with debate I'm too old to care and too frustrated to let it get to me. So I just vent and play this game of who is quilty when all of us are.

It's not too late to find the path of liberty, justice and truth. Just find a willingness to know the facts that prove your most cherished beliefs are false and evil.
Hong Wu wrote:
Image

Very interesting. However, the flatlined Gini for individuals since 1960 is somewhat deceptive because of the changing age distribution. There were a lot more children in 1960, so of course inequality of persons was much greater. It rose sharply during the 1946-61 baby boom for the same reason. So the flat Gini since 1960, during a time when the age distribution was becoming narrower, indicates increased inequality among persons, too, if the data are adjusted to account for the aging of the population.
Drlee wrote:The idiotic comments about giving away money are great examples of why I am ashamed of those who call themselves conservatives. When did it happen that conservative came to mean stupid?

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." -- John Stuart Mill
The same conservatives do not believe in privacy, the balanced budget, fair and free elections and equality under the law. They are simply dullards who think it is cool to be conservative. Oh but to have the conservative label mean something again. At least something other than dumbass racist cracker.

"Liberal" and "conservative" labels have always been too pliable to be of much use in intelligent discourse. I avoid them entirely for that reason. "Right" (i.e., elitist) and "left" (egalitarian) are much more meaningful.
EU rope wrote:Nothing wrong with income inequality. However, inequality in rights (privileges) is a problem. It is as simple as that.

Well! And here I thought I was going to be the only one in the thread capable of knowing the difference between income inequality resulting from inequality of contribution, which everyone but the occasional fool supports, and income inequality resulting from inequality of rights, which is what right-wing "conservatives" support. Kudos, EU rope!
MEAGAIN wrote:No more excuses for those who stay behind anymore. There have had special benefits for years and all its done is made some more behind.

What special benefits would those be? You mean the additional rent their landlords charge them every time they get anything from public or private charity? Every time anything is given to the landless, their landlords just take it all. That is why trillions in welfare spending has not helped the poor one bit, but has made their landlords trillions richer.
Many people more quailified for certain positions were denied because of stupid quotas. This is wrong.

If only that wrong were not insignificant compared to the wrongs it is intended to countervail...
You want equaility, then go out and get you some quality.

Its racist to take from one more deserving and give it to one less so.

If only you meant, "Its racist to take from those who are landless because of race-based slavery, a history of racist laws, and oppression by racists, but who contribute more by their labor, and give it to those who, because they are of the land-stealing race, own the land."
You should get what you have EARNED,not what some special interest group says you 'deserve'.

You mean like working poor people should get to keep what they have earned, and not have half of it stolen and given to rich, greedy, privilege parasites because some special interest group says private landowners "deserve" to pocket the land value other people's taxes creates?

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's not what you mean, is it?
If you can't feed your kids then you shouldn't have them.

What if you could feed them, if only you weren't being forcibly deprived of your liberty and the fruits of your labor for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites?
It should be against the law like any other form of child abuse.

But the landowner thieving that deprives people of the opportunity to support their families unless they pay off a rich, greedy, privileged extortionist should be enforced by law...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....
We need farms for unwed mothers and jails for the men who knock em up.

What an eloquent confession of evil.
Not bigger paychecks and free shelter.

How about the right to liberty that has been forcibly removed...?

Naaaaahhhh...
so_crates wrote:What I find is most progressives are rebellious as long as it doesn't cost them personally.

While right-wing apologists for privilege are all for liberty and justice as long as it doesn't cost them personally....
An example is Bill Maher, he was all for Obama and his taxes until they started taking too big a chunk out of his salary,
then it was "Liberals you might lose me."
Or how many are for massive welfare programs, yet they let their next door neighbors starve?

There are many on the left who do not understand the futility of welfare -- and many on the right who pretend it is for the benefit of the recipients, and not exclusively for the benefit of their landlords.
Warren Buffet got up a few years ago and stumping for higher taxes said: "The rich should pay their fair share." Yet when tax time rolled around he took every deduction he could.

He was saying the rules were not fair, not that the rules should be different for him than for other rich people.

Funny how apologists for privilege can't -- or won't -- get their heads around something so simple.
Even with so-called wage inequality, if progressives feel wages are unequal, let them show solidarity with those making less by cutting their (progressives) salaries. Then at least they'd be doing something.

"You think slavery is so bad? Well, go out and get a job, save up your money, buy some slaves, and free them! Problem solved!"
#14637287
Buffet.

He said one thing yet acted another. If he truly felt the rules were unfair, nobody stopped him from making out a check to the treasury for the difference.

Income inequality.

Once again the point here is I'm forever hearing how the,rich should pay their "fair share." So what about all those rich progressives squawking about wage inequality. Shouldn't they do their fair share and lower their wages to equal wage out. Like I said let me see progressive put their money where their mouth is.
#14637291
Shouldn't they do their fair share and lower their wages to equal wage out.


More idiocy.

How about this sport. We raise the minimum wage to a livable level and stop subsidizing the wealthy with our tax dollars. That is what a conservative (who does not believe in government subsidies) would do.

But it is typical of the TEA Party morons to believe that the way to overcome income inequality is to lower everyone's wages.

#14637292
so_crates wrote:Buffet.

He said one thing yet acted another. If he truly felt the rules were unfair, nobody stopped him from making out a check to the treasury for the difference.

Income inequality.

Once again the point here is I'm forever hearing how the,rich should pay their "fair share." So what about all those rich progressives squawking about wage inequality. Shouldn't they do their fair share and lower their wages to equal wage out. Like I said let me see progressive put their money where their mouth is.


I hear this argument every now and then and it's dumb. There is no inconsistency in playing by the rules however ruthlessly and at the same time saying that the rules should be changed. I think pass interference is a vague, capricious rule in football but if I were coaching a football team I'd sure as hell be shouting at the refs to have it called every possible time I could get the other team penalized for it.

What's more, if Buffett were to donate money to the government to compensate for what he thinks taxes actually should be, all this would do is subsidize the other leeches who really don't care at all.
#14637295
so_crates wrote:Buffet. He said one thing yet acted another.

Garbage. That's like saying well educated people who protest the lack of opportunities for the less educated are hypocrites unless they give up their skilled jobs and work at unskilled jobs. It's just absurd, dishonest, vicious, evil filth.
If he truly felt the rules were unfair, nobody stopped him from making out a check to the treasury for the difference.

Yes, and no one stops people who advocate adoption from giving up their own kids for adoption.

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

You are just spewing idiotic, evil garbage.
Once again the point here is I'm forever hearing how the,rich should pay their "fair share."

And you want them to continue to be privileged to profit from the injustices inflicted on others, that's clear.
So what about all those rich progressives squawking about wage inequality.

They have a conscience. Something you clearly have trouble grasping.
Shouldn't they do their fair share and lower their wages to equal wage out.

"If they think adoption is so great, they should be giving up their own kids for adoption."

Do you understand how completely stupid and dishonest such filth is?
Like I said let me see progressive put their money where their mouth is.

"All these people who think organ transplants are so great for saving lives, I don't see them going into hospitals and cutting out their hearts, kidneys, and livers to save other people's lives, the hypocrites."

"Idiotic" would be too kind a description for such vicious, insane, evil filth.
#14637296
He's the one complaining, it his responsibility to act.

Think of it like the bull line we get handed about global warming:

"But if we cut back our emissions we'll just be help China, who doesn't care how much emissions they spew into the atmosphere."

"We should set a good example, then others will follow."

Well, let Buffet and other progressives set a good example, then others will follow.
Last edited by so_crates on 31 Dec 2015 20:49, edited 1 time in total.
#14637302
Giving up jobs.

Close, but not quite. If you want to whine and cry about how tough people have it give them your job. No, dishonesty is pointing out an injustice and not acting to correct it. Dishonesty is look to somebody else to do what you should be doing.

Kids up for adoption.

I believe that's a false analogy. People are very different from money. You can't make another Johnny or Mary, you can however make many $5 bills.

Rich injustices to others.

Yah, like jobs. I've never gotten a job from a poor person.

Donations to charity. Just where do you think charities get their funds?

Organ transplants.

Another false analogy. Organs are need to maintain life, money you don't.

As far as dishonesty goes, to me its dishonest to rail against something as long as there's no risk in it to you. How much do you help the poor other than kvetching about it? That, to me, is really dishonest.
#14637340
Drlee wrote:How about this sport. We raise the minimum wage to a livable level and stop subsidizing the wealthy with our tax dollars.

I've already explained why that won't work: it just raises residential land rents (actually, it reduces commercial and industrial land rents by an equivalent amount, because minimum-wage workplace locations are made that much less profitable).
That is what a conservative (who does not believe in government subsidies) would do.

Yeah, because he knows the additional money won't go to the working people who are earning it, but to their landlords.
But it is typical of the TEA Party morons to believe that the way to overcome income inequality is to lower everyone's wages.

And ignore -- or even increase -- the unearned incomes of rich, greedy, privileged parasites. Right.

Cast out first the beam that is in thine own eye, sport.
so_crates wrote:He's the one complaining, it his responsibility to act.

He IS acting: he's using his moral authority as a super-duper uber-rich playa to educate the opinions of nitwits who rationalize privilege, justify injustice and excuse evil. Or trying to, anyway.
Think of it like the bull line we get handed about global warming:

"But if we cut back our emissions we'll just be help China, who doesn't care how much emissions they spew into the atmosphere."

"We should set a good example, then others will follow."

Read my posts on global warming.
Well, let Buffet and other progressives set a good example, then others will follow.

You know that is false. People without conscience -- i.e., sociopaths -- will not follow an example of conscience. They don't understand it; they think people with a conscience are just suckers.
so_crates wrote:Giving up jobs. Close, but not quite.

No, I am correct.
If you want to whine and cry about how tough people have it give them your job.

That's just more stupid, evil filth from you. I can DO my job. They can't.

See how easy it always is to prove that your stupid, evil filth is stupid, evil filth?
No, dishonesty is pointing out an injustice and not acting to correct it.

More stupid, evil filth from you. It is fundamental to democratic governance that we point out injustices publicly, using moral suasion, precisely because WE CAN'T correct them acting as individuals.

Capisci?
Dishonesty is look to somebody else to do what you should be doing.

It is GOVERNMENT'S job to secure people's rights, NOT MINE.

CAPISCI?
Kids up for adoption. I believe that's a false analogy.

But you are wrong.
People are very different from money.

The principle is the same: you are claiming that those who advocate the disadvantaged get access to advantages they lack are hypocrites if they don't relinquish their own advantages to make up the lack.
You can't make another Johnny or Mary,

Sure you can.
you can however make many $5 bills.

Those who have kids can typically make more.
Rich injustices to others. Yah, like jobs. I've never gotten a job from a poor person.

Maybe because the poor people have been robbed, by the rich, of the money they might have used to hire you...?
Donations to charity. Just where do you think charities get their funds?

Private charity is mostly ineffective for the reasons I have explained: everything is just taken by landowners.
Organ transplants. Another false analogy.

Another correct analogy, you mean.
Organs are need to maintain life, money you don't.

Irrelevant. You don't need both kidneys, so give one up. You don't need your corneas, let someone else have them. You don't need all your liver, give a piece to save a dying child.
As far as dishonesty goes, to me its dishonest to rail against something as long as there's no risk in it to you.

There's plenty of risk in it. In some countries, those who advocate reforms are routinely assassinated, and even here it can be career suicide in certain professions (especially economics).
How much do you help the poor other than kvetching about it? That, to me, is really dishonest.

Well, we already know that you don't know what you are talking about.

I happen to be aware that under the current system I can't help the poor, only their landlords. Until the land problem is solved, nothing else will work. So what I and a few others are doing here, identifying the relevant facts to those who don't understand them but might want to, will be far more effective: it will lay the groundwork for the only solution to poverty that CAN work.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 01 Jan 2016 00:20, edited 1 time in total.
#14637358
And ignore -- or even increase -- the unearned incomes of rich, greedy, privileged parasites. Right.


You have a really annoying habit of not reading what other write. You commented on this:

That is what a conservative (who does not believe in government subsidies) would do.


Do try to pay attention.

Now you may disagree with my proposal to raise the minimum wage just as I disagree with your notion that rents would inevitably absorb the difference. Of course we can, by observation see that this has never been the case.

There are tons of examples of localities forcing the working folks out in favor of the wealthy. San Francisco is a case in point. In that case I absolutely have no problem taxing the fuck out of the new residents to provide affordable housing. I have no problem with rent-control. Zoning restrictions. Whatever is necessary to level the playing field.

Now So-crates. I am in a pretty high tax bracket. I donate a lot of money to charity. I personally work more than one day a week on charitable projects. Lots of people do. You ignore them.

I do not favor higher taxes to directly transfer money from the rich to the poor. I favor higher taxes on the wealthy to help to balance the federal budget. I favor a higher minimum wage not so much as a transfer of wealth but for the same reason I favor higher taxes on the wealthy. A higher minimum wage will raise tax money and, perhaps more importantly, take working people off of expensive government services. Services my friend, which amount to little more than direct government subsidies to the wealthy.

Buffet has pledged his entire fortune to help others. Funny you would pick on him. Buffet has pledged 99% of his fortune to charity. He donated 9.5 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He gave 3 billion to his children's charities in 2012 alone. This year he has given 2.8 billion. His lifetime gifts have topped 25 billion. He calls for higher taxes on the wealthy because he knows that it will greatly benefit others while not hurting them one bit.

It is typical of your shallow arguments to pick on one of the few people whose condemnation makes you look foolish indeed.
#14638374
And ignore -- or even increase -- the unearned incomes of rich, greedy, privileged parasites. Right.

Drlee wrote:You have a really annoying habit of not reading what other write. You commented on this:

That is what a conservative (who does not believe in government subsidies) would do.

Do try to pay attention.

I commented as I did BECAUSE conservatives DO believe in government subsidies -- the subsidies to rich, greedy, privileged parasites -- as you, being a conservative, will now confirm for me:
Now you may disagree with my proposal to raise the minimum wage just as I disagree with your notion that rents would inevitably absorb the difference. Of course we can, by observation see that this has never been the case.

It has ALWAYS been the case. That is why the minimum-wage working poor stay poor no matter what the minimum wage or how hard they work, while their landlords get rich without lifting a finger.
There are tons of examples of localities forcing the working folks out in favor of the wealthy. San Francisco is a case in point. In that case I absolutely have no problem taxing the fuck out of the new residents to provide affordable housing.

Making housing more affordable for existing residents by making it unaffordable for the new residents? That would just subsidize wasteful allocation, preventing people from moving to more advantageous locations.
I have no problem with rent-control.

SF has HAD rent control for more than 40 years, and has become LESS, not more, affordable in that time. The same thing has happened in NYC, Vancouver, and other cities that have tried to make rent affordable with rent control. The effect has been the exact opposite.

Such a mystery.

To you, that is.
Zoning restrictions.

Zoning just changes which greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners get to pocket how much publicly created value.
Whatever is necessary to level the playing field.

Except the ONE measure that actually WOULD level the playing field: requiring just compensation from those who exclude others from land to the community of those thus excluded.
Now So-crates. I am in a pretty high tax bracket. I donate a lot of money to charity. I personally work more than one day a week on charitable projects. Lots of people do. You ignore them.

All private and public charities do is raise land rents in the locations where they provide benefits.
I do not favor higher taxes to directly transfer money from the rich to the poor.

On that we agree! The poor need restoration of their rights, justice, and access to opportunity, not charity.
I favor higher taxes on the wealthy to help to balance the federal budget.

Whereas I favor them to help balance the scales of justice.
I favor a higher minimum wage not so much as a transfer of wealth but for the same reason I favor higher taxes on the wealthy. A higher minimum wage will raise tax money and, perhaps more importantly, take working people off of expensive government services. Services my friend, which amount to little more than direct government subsidies to the wealthy.

Right: the value of all publicly (and private charity) provided services and infrastructure is taken by landowners in increased land rents.
Buffet has pledged his entire fortune to help others. Funny you would pick on him. Buffet has pledged 99% of his fortune to charity.

Yes. To charity. Not to JUSTICE.
He donated 9.5 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He gave 3 billion to his children's charities in 2012 alone. This year he has given 2.8 billion. His lifetime gifts have topped 25 billion.

Until they support the recovery of publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit with gifts of equivalent size to the NGOs that advocate it, all their charitable "giving" is just giving more unearned wealth to rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners.
He calls for higher taxes on the wealthy because he knows that it will greatly benefit others while not hurting them one bit.

I must say that Buffett's concern seems to be genuine:

"There's class warfare all right; but it's my class, the rich class, that is waging war, and we're winning." -- Warren Buffett

But he clearly doesn't understand how all the benefit of private as well as public charity is just taken by landowners.
#14638451
I am sorry all. I started to disassemble TTP's bullshit piece by piece but when I got here:

All private and public charities do is raise land rents in the locations where they provide benefits.


I realized that I was dealing with stupidity of monumental proportions. It became clear that it is absolutely beneath my personal sense of worth to justify that level of idiocy by a serious response.

No doubt TTP will post some bullshit about my running away or some such but those here who know me over the years will know that is not my style. There comes a point when I value what little time I have to devote to POFO to the extent that I intend to use it responding to serious posters with serious opinions. This is neither.

Someone else can deal with this lunacy but not me.
#14638650
I feel that once you remove the main thrust of his argument from the hard kernel of abuse it makes more sense. Do you agree that land rent is a major cause of inequality, Drlee?


I do not. Not in the US anyway. I have been looking at these data for some time.

OK. Here it is. The cost of rents as a percentage of income has been climbing for some time. It now approaches and exceeds the 30% that the government uses as a caution level. Way more than exceeds that in some markets. If course we had another event that has dramatically affected it too. That was the housing crash that forced a considerable number of people into the rental market. Compare the 1% foreclosure inventory of the great depression with the 2012 inventory of 3.4%. This is a staggering number. Of course housing purchase prices crashed but rental prices increased as more people (and more importantly people with higher incomes) challenged it.

Snip:

Compared to 1975 and the long term average from there housing prices in the US have fallen below the average while at the same time prices in the UK are at about 125% of the long term average. So it depends where one is I freely admit.

Prices against wages from 1976 to 2015 have risen 50% in the US while in Britain they have risen 275%.

The CPI has risen 710% since 1967. And incomes for the bottom two quintiles have fallen 17 (bottom) and 10%(2nd) since 2000.

Meanwhile health care costs have risen from 6% of GDP in 1965 to almost 18% of GDP in 2015.

Just nitpicking numbers. But as you can see, concentrating on rent is a red herring.

Let's face it. The issue is wages. Real incomes for the bottom 40% of Americans are falling precipitously while the cost of living is rising. Income distribution is continuing to dramatically skew toward the wealthy.

Far to many people are trying to plug in one-over-the-world solutions to the problem. Check this out. Here is an interesting number about the minimum wage. In 1968 the minimum wage was set at 99% of the federal poverty level. Today it is hovering around 60%.

The solutions to our income problems do not lie with bringing down the upper incomes. They lie with increasing incomes of the lower income levels. It is really as simple as that. Higher incomes in the lower level consumers will drive up rents and housing prices somewhat. But historical data shows that when incomes in the lower two quintiles (all not to put to fine a point on it) were substantially higher, rents as a percentage of income..... weren't. That is, after all, the bottom line.
#14638753
Drlee wrote:I am sorry all. I started to disassemble TTP's bullshit piece by piece

Sure you did.
but when I got here:


All private and public charities do is raise land rents in the locations where they provide benefits.

I realized that I was dealing with stupidity of monumental proportions.

No, just understanding far above yours.
#14638764
I feel that once you remove the main thrust of his argument from the hard kernel of abuse it makes more sense. Do you agree that land rent is a major cause of inequality, Drlee?


I apologize Comrade Tim. I feel like my answer missed the mark.

Of course I understand TTPs Georgist feelings. I do not disagree with George that (especially in his day) land rent tend to capture some of the surplus from economic progress. This was certainly more marked in George's time than it is now. I am certainly no economist but Stiglitz is and he also agrees with a land tax versus other forms of taxes aimed at income redistribution and it is hard to argue with him. I guess it is fair to say that there is widespread support for increased land value taxes and I agree with many of them.

The problem is that as a practical matter they are devilishly hard to administer and politically almost impossible to enact. How do you decide how to fairly do it? Does the urban farmer with an extra quarter of an acre have to build on the property to pay the taxes? Will elderly urban homeowners find themselves unable to keep the family home? Will the complexion of our cities change as land taxes encourage/force people to cram more and more folks onto less and less land? Do we want cities with only multifamily housing and the possibility of single family home ownership beyond the dream of the average worker? How do you phase such a tax in without bankrupting landowners forced to repurpose their land to pay the tax. So I tend to agree with Hayek that the challenges of assessment nearly insurmountable.

What everyone agrees on though is that addressing income inequality through land taxes (and that is where this ultimately goes) would take decades to implement and would be devilishly hard to do. And the process would involve making profound decisions about what we want our future to look like.

More importantly though is that there are steps we can take immediately to help deal with the problem. We can work on health care. We can end business subsidies (especially those that depress wages). We can consider public sector employment programs. We can look at minimum wage levels. That kind of stuff.

One thing that a LVT could theoretically do is raise so much revenue that the state might consider some sort of national earnings floor for all citizens. That will not play well with competing ideas in American politics though I would be willing to risk trying.

I am still not on top of it but I did not want my answer to seem thoughtless and when I read it I thought I was a bit all over the board.
#14638767
I feel that once you remove the main thrust of his argument from the hard kernel of abuse it makes more sense. Do you agree that land rent is a major cause of inequality, Drlee?

Drlee wrote:I do not. Not in the US anyway.

But you are dead wrong. Nearly half of all land value in the USA is owned, directly or indirectly, by the wealthiest 1%, and this inequality has grown rapidly in the last 40 years, especially the last 20. It is also notable that economically disadvantaged racial minorities in the USA -- blacks and Latinos -- own MUCH smaller shares of total land value than their shares of total income. The relative values of black and white owner-occupied residences is devastatingly telling: the whites own dwellings nearly three times as valuable as those of blacks, and the difference is mostly land value, not improvement value:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... alth-isnt/

Blacks are much more likely to own condominiums, or mobile homes on rented pads, which have little or no land value, and thus tend to depreciate while land appreciates.
I have been looking at these data for some time.

When do you think you might start seeing them?
The cost of rents as a percentage of income has been climbing for some time.

As has the cost of taxes as a percentage of the EARNED incomes of working people. Do you understand how those two facts go together, are in fact inseparable?

Of course not.
That was the housing crash that forced a considerable number of people into the rental market.

But also put their former residences in the rental market.
Compared to 1975 and the long term average from there housing prices in the US have fallen below the average while at the same time prices in the UK are at about 125% of the long term average. So it depends where one is I freely admit.

You are also ignoring the increasing prevalence in the USA of condominiums, mobile homes, and other types of owner-occupied dwelling that have much lower land value fractions than traditional single family detached dwellings.
Prices against wages from 1976 to 2015 have risen 50% in the US while in Britain they have risen 275%.

And in both cases, the difference is almost all land value increase.
The CPI has risen 710% since 1967. And incomes for the bottom two quintiles have fallen 17 (bottom) and 10%(2nd) since 2000.

And in the same time period, land values have skyrocketed thousands of percent because MORE OF PRODUCTION IS BEING TAKEN BY LANDOWNERS. Hello? This effect of economic law is very clearly and irrefutably explained in Henry George's classic, "Progress and Poverty."
Meanwhile health care costs have risen from 6% of GDP in 1965 to almost 18% of GDP in 2015.

More than half of that is now paid by government programs, and THE EFFECT IS TO INCREASE RESIDENTIAL LAND RENTS, as you have to live near doctors, clinics, hospitals, labs, etc. to get the benefits. Medicare benefits the elderly poor? Nope. They have to pay higher rents to live near enough to hospitals to get the benefits. Medicaid relieves the poor of health care costs? Nope. They, too, must pay higher rents, because the landowner charges them full market value for access to the "free" care.

EVERYTHING WE THINK WE ARE GIVING TO THE POOR, WE ARE GIVING TO THEIR LANDLORDS, INSTEAD.

That's why despite all the trillions spent on the poor, they stay poor, while their landlords grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice without lifting a finger.

HELLO???
Just nitpicking numbers. But as you can see, concentrating on rent is a red herring.

DEAD WRONG. See above.
Let's face it. The issue is wages.

Wrong. Read "Progress and Poverty" and get a clue. The main issue is the landowners' escalator -- and the workers' treadmill that powers it.
Real incomes for the bottom 40% of Americans are falling precipitously while the cost of living is rising. Income distribution is continuing to dramatically skew toward the wealthy.

Mainly because they own the land, and collect the rapidly increasing rent, but secondarily because of the increasing importance of other privileges like IP monopolies and banksters' debt money issuance.
Far to many people are trying to plug in one-over-the-world solutions to the problem.

When you understand why the problem is land, you understand why the solution must also be land.
Check this out. Here is an interesting number about the minimum wage. In 1968 the minimum wage was set at 99% of the federal poverty level. Today it is hovering around 60%.

Because the poverty level is defined as a set fraction of total income, which includes the rapidly increasing RENTAL income of landowners.
The solutions to our income problems do not lie with bringing down the upper incomes.

Correct. They lie in identifying which incomes are earned by commensurate contributions to production and which are stolen by dint of privilege, and bringing down the latter.
They lie with increasing incomes of the lower income levels.

Nope. Can't work. Until you address the landowner's power to take the incomes of the landless, giving the landless more income just gives it to the landowner instead.
It is really as simple as that.

Nope. As Einstein -- a fan of Henry George and land rent recovery, btw -- observed, "Everything should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
Higher incomes in the lower level consumers will drive up rents and housing prices somewhat.

Landowners will take it all.
But historical data shows that when incomes in the lower two quintiles (all not to put to fine a point on it) were substantially higher, rents as a percentage of income..... weren't.

Because the population was lower, and location advantage less pronounced because gas was so cheap.
That is, after all, the bottom line.

Google "Law of Rent" and start reading.
#14638885
Thank you, Drlee for your considered replies. I think I now better understand your objections to LVT. I'm no expert myself but if TTP could be persuaded to be less choleric about the matter, they can be adequately dressed. For example, you mentioned the elderly being unable to keep the family home. A key part of LVT is that it could be easily rolled over to be deduced once the home is sold or inherited.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would […]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]