Truth To Power wrote:It's best suited to junior governments, because the tax base can't be moved, and is strongly tied to local government spending on services and infrastructure. National governments are better funded by seigniorage and Pigovian taxes, because the largest jurisdiction can best avoid the associated excess burdens. But in many countries, junior governments don't have much mandated responsibility, so the national government needs to recover the land rent its local spending creates, rather than giving it away to landowners.
SilasWegg wrote:Therefore it would be bad to replace the US FIT with an LVT as I suspected and you apparently agree with.
No. It would still be better to replace FIT with LVT. In fact, in the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers tried to implement the right idea: funding the federal government entirely by LVT.
Some that can't be used productively would be abandoned. But that's a good thing.
Only in your mind--not in mine.
No, I am objectively right and you are objectively wrong about that. Wasting resources to keep unproductive land in use is just an objective loss, full stop.
No, any pollution or exhaustion of resources would be charged for the associated loss of value.
And since land was less valuable under this system, they would pay less for doing it than they currently are,
No, you are confused between use or rental value and exchange value. Exchange value is just the welfare subsidy the market expects the landowner will be given for doing nothing, and does not affect the rental value (though the former is based in part on the latter). Over-exploitation or pollution reduces rental value, and the user would have to pay the sum of the value thus depleted.
so your system would make it just more affordable to exploit public lands than corporations already have it now.
It would match the payment to the value taken, if that's what you mean.
Demand for use is not the same as demand for ownership.
For most people it is
No, it's not.
because by owning the land I control the use and what I deem the best use for the land is all that really matters.
No, that's false, as proved, repeat, PROVED by all the land that is held entirely out of use, for speculation, and all the land that is owned at higher cost than its rental value justifies. The existence of that land -- and the very large amount of it -- proves I am objectively right and you are objectively wrong. That will continue to happen as long as you presume to dispute with me.
Such claims are common enough, but are always false and absurd. LVT is just what a tenant would pay a private landowner for use of the land. So all the every day type people are already affording it. Being relieved of other taxes would just make it even more affordable to them.
Since it is cheaper for me to own than rent,
Because by owning land, you are stealing from the community.
I do not find having my cost of living increase absurd,
Just like the slave owner whose cost of living would increase if he could no longer compel others' labor by force. Of course you like owning slaves. It is the slaves who have reason to object to the arrangement, not their owners.
nor do I find existing at the whims of a government or corporate lackey's whims reassuring.
But your claims are the exact, diametric opposite of the truth. LVT means the high bidder gets to use the land, and government officials and corporate lackeys have nothing to say about it beyond their own bids. Furthermore, the universal individual exemption (or, second best, citizen's dividend) means everyone gets free, secure tenure on enough of the available good land of
their choice to support themselves. It is under the CURRENT system of private landowner privilege that, absent rescue by government, the landless exist only at the whims of landowners; so why don't you object to
that, hmmmmmmmmmm?
Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right, I forgot: you find it
quite reassuring that
others currently exist at
your whims...
See how easily your claims are proved absurd?
Only in your mind.
No, in fact.
I have not seen you prove anything,
Yes, you have: I have proved your claims false and your objections spurious.
let alone anything is absurd (and how ironic that you deem my claims absurd when you agreed with my first one.
I didn't, and I explained the relevant facts to you.
It's always the same.
I am sure you think you are always right.
<yawn> I'm always right about
this, because it's just indisputable objective facts and their inescapable logical implications.
The internet is full of people like you--
No, in more than 20 years on the Internet, I have found it is full of people like
you: apologists for greed, privilege and injustice who will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove their beliefs are false and evil.
compensating for your inability to make a logical argument or salient point by throwing around insults like we are supposed to care what you think.
Everyone reading this knows you are describing not me, but yourself.
Life is absurd, beyond that, the only thing that comes to mind is your position.
I guess that must be why dozens of eminent Western economists, including four (count 'em, FOUR) Nobel laureates, said explicitly that I am right and you are wrong:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_lett ... chev_(1990)
The vast majority of working homeowners end up paying more in taxes than the economic advantage they obtain from the resulting government spending on desirable services and infrastructure.
ingliz wrote:52% of households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes (direct and indirect).
I already explained why that is misleading, and you just ignored it and posted it again.
YOU PROPOSE TO FLAT-OUT STEAL THEIR HOMES!!
More than 450,000 properties in the UK have been empty for at least six months - enough to put a roof over the heads of a quarter of the families on council house waiting lists.
You have stated that you will FLAT-OUT
STEAL OCCUPIED homes if a commissar decides that his friends "need" them more than the owners. That is incomparably worse treatment than the worst that could happen to homeowners under LVT.
Which will be allocated to the friends of the commissars who control access to it.
Social housing is allocated according to need.
No it's not. In every city in the world with social housing, there are homeless and ill-housed people who need social housing more than some of the people who are in it.
In your system, "need" is decided by the housing commissar, and it is invariably his friends and political allies who need the best housing.
We know how that plays out, having seen it play out the exact same way every time it has ever been tried.
Rent control only makes private housing less expensive to the extent that it makes it worse.
Rent regulation covered the whole of the UK private sector rental market from 1915 to 1980.
And UK private sector rental housing went from being among the best in Europe to the worst.
I have already stipulated LVT should not be implemented as a "Single Tax."
Truth to Power wrote:LVT is not an added tax, it replaces other taxes.
See the sort of disgraceful filth you always have to resort to? You are deceitfully pretending that by "other" I meant "
all other."
Despicable.
The more consumer prices decline, the more seigniorage government can capture by printing enough money to prevent deflation.
When economists talk about "printing more money" and "lowering interest rates" they're talking about the same thing.
Already refuted. In modern debt-money systems, lowering interest rates is the way central banks try to get PRIVATE banks to issue more debt money, but the two are not the same. I already explained that to you very clearly and patiently (and futilely).
I prove you wrong over and over again, and you just ignore the proofs and repost the same claims you have already seen disproved.
If interest rates are already zero, there is little room to lower them further, so using this policy to fight deflation will not work well.
You do not know what you are talking about:
In Japan today, the monetary base has been growing but prices have been declining,
See? You incorrectly imagine the monetary
base is the money supply, because you do not know any economics.
by printing enough money
Nouriel Roubini, Money and Inflation: Understanding the World Macroeconomy wrote:You can use monetary policy to start a recession, but not stop one.
Roubini is only talking about debt money systems (because all modern capitalist countries use them), not the kind of fiat money system I am talking about.
seigniorage
Seigniorage is effectively a tax imposed by the government on private agents.
Nope. That's just more false and absurd garbage from you. If it doesn't transfer purchasing power from the private sector to government, it's not a tax. Seigniorage on non-inflationary money supply increases is therefore not a tax.
You are proved wrong.
Again. That will continue to happen every time you presume to dispute with me.