[ingliz]

you can't have justice without discomfiting those who are counting on injustice

So your scheme is designed to make everyone worse off, not just pensioners?

See?

I see cuts

"Top-up" benefits are just a gift to private landlords

cuts

The UIE would make it possible to cut publicly funded pensions a fair amount

cuts

Personally, I don't think pensions should be designed to maintain the standard of living people had when they were working,

cuts

the modern welfare state is a huge subsidy machine for the profit of landowners, and I have no intention of supporting it.

and cuts.

refuted

ONS, The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 2012/13

Is it justice...

[Truth To Power]

you can't have justice without discomfiting those who are counting on injustice

So your scheme is designed to make everyone worse off, not just pensioners?

No. Unlike you, most people are not counting on injustice and are not in favor of injustice. You give every evidence of preferring injustice over justice (i.e., evil over good), but that is a minority position, not a unanimous one. Actually, even a lot of people who ARE counting on injustice will nevertheless be made better off by LVT despite themselves: they have an erroneous understanding of where their own interests lie. You are probably even one of them.

See?

I see cuts

To the welfare subsidy to landowners. I've already told you I am going to cut that.

Or in your view, is there no government spending that should be cut, no program whose goals could be achieved more efficiently through less costly means, and without burdening producers and consumers so much? There's no taxpayer who would make better use of his marginal tax payment than the least justifiable government expenditure?

That's a minority position if ever there was one!

"Top-up" benefits are just a gift to private landlords

cuts

Yep. I've said I'm going to cut the welfare subsidy to landowners. That's what makes spending on desirable services and infrastructure affordable.

The UIE would make it possible to cut publicly funded pensions a fair amount

cuts

Yep. As the pensioners won't need so much money for rent, won't be burdened with other taxes, and consumer prices will generally decline, they won't need to be given so much at the expense of producers.

Personally, I don't think pensions should be designed to maintain the standard of living people had when they were working,

cuts

Yep: I can't justify taking money from people who have earned it and need it, and giving it to people who are much wealthier, haven't earned it, and don't need it.

You can't justify it either, but you try because you favor injustice over justice, and the interests of the privileged over the interests of the community.

the modern welfare state is a huge subsidy machine for the profit of landowners, and I have no intention of supporting it.

and cuts.

Yep. But not the cuts you claimed.

See?

refuted

ONS, The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 2012/13

Refuted. Income is not a useful measure of wealth or ability to pay. You think it's a good thing to confiscate the wages earned by working people with few assets and give them to idle rich people with low incomes. I don't.

Is it justice...

So you agree that you are opposed to justice, and favor injustice over justice, evil over good. I told you that right at the beginning, and everything you have said since then confirms it.

[ingliz]

Unlike you, most people are not counting on injustice and are not in favor of injustice.

No?

financial wealth... is largely based on land

You think it's a good thing to confiscate the wages earned by working people with few assets and give them to idle rich people with low incomes.

According to the ONS, in the year 2010/2011 taxes less transfers as a proportion of original income were minus 211 percent for the lowest quintile, minus 85 percent for the second lowest quintile and minus 23 percent for the middle quintile. It is only when you get into the top 40 percent that people begin to be net contributors.

working people with few assets

The majority of workers are homeowners.

You think it's a good thing to confiscate the wages earned by working people

Overall, 52% of households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes (direct and indirect).

* ONS

injustice over justice, evil over good.

Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income almost 15 times greater than the poorest fifth. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households is reduced to four-to-one.

* ONS

3. It stimulates more productive use of land, reducing land rents

If land rents are reduced and land use declining, how can you expect to raise £410 billion from LVT?

Urban development economists increasingly recognize that LVT REDUCES pressure on the environment, by stimulating the most productive uses of the best sites. I.e., when people can live in a high-rise apartment building on the convenient, centrally located land you want to garden, it means many more acres in less advantageous locations can be devoted to gardens, parks, etc., and less land is needed for roads and other infrastructure, because LVT aligns both governmental and private incentives with the public interest in efficient allocation of land.

prices will generally decline

Declining prices, if they persist, generally create a vicious spiral of negatives such as falling profits, closing factories, shrinking employment and incomes, and increasing defaults on loans by companies and individuals.

That's true,

[Truth To Power]

Unlike you, most people are not counting on injustice and are not in favor of injustice.

No?

I have to hope they have not been deceived and seduced by institutionalized evil, as you have.

financial wealth... is largely based on land

Most people are not wealthy, and even those who do own their homes incur far larger tax burdens on their earnings and consumption than the land rents they get.

You think it's a good thing to confiscate the wages earned by working people with few assets and give them to idle rich people with low incomes.

According to the ONS, in the year 2010/2011 taxes less transfers as a proportion of original income were minus 211 percent for the lowest quintile, minus 85 percent for the second lowest quintile and minus 23 percent for the middle quintile. It is only when you get into the top 40 percent that people begin to be net contributors.

Because the ONS does not count shifted taxes or the land rent people pay to private landowners for access to government services: which are effectively taxes, but pocketed by private landowners.

working people with few assets

The majority of workers are homeowners.

But now you are just trying to change the subject again. Homeowners own homes, not necessarily much land. They may own leaseholds, or flats with very little land component, or mobile homes, etc. The lower the worker's wealth, the lower the land component in their home tends to be.

The vast majority of homeowning workers end up paying far more in taxes than they get back in land rent. The ones who don't own their homes -- more than 1/3 -- are being robbed atrociously.

You think it's a good thing to confiscate the wages earned by working people

Overall, 52% of households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes (direct and indirect).

Already refuted. Your numbers don't include the taxes they pay to landowners for access to government services and infrastructure.

injustice over justice, evil over good.

Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income almost 15 times greater than the poorest fifth.

No, that's false. The measure of wealth is wealth, not income. It's assets and net worth that make someone rich, not income. Learn it, or continue to spew irrelevant, misleading nonsense permanently.

After all taxes and benefits are taken into account the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households is reduced to four-to-one.

Because low-income wealthy households are getting money taken from higher-income working people with fewer assets. Working people who can't afford to buy a house are being robbed of their rightful wages, and the money is being used to make land more expensive, for the unearned profit of landowners. You favor this system of robbing working people to make housing more expensive, so they have to pay landowners even more rent for doing nothing, and can't afford to buy.

3. It stimulates more productive use of land, reducing land rents

If land rents are reduced and land use declining, how can you expect to raise £410 billion from LVT?

Because unlike you, I know something of the relevant economic relationships. Land rent is simply the economic advantage the land user can expect to enjoy, and land use is much more advantageous when you don't have to pay taxes on your production or consumption.

There is no way to be sure that LVT is going to raise 410G, 210G, or 810G. I strongly suspect (and Gaffney has argued pretty persuasively) that it will likely be closer to the latter figure. The point is that no matter how much revenue it raises, it is always going to be better to recover publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit rather than give it away to rich, greedy, idle, parasitic landowners for doing nothing, and instead robbing producers and consumers to provide that giveaway to landowners. There is nothing you can ever say that can ever alter that fact.

Urban development economists increasingly recognize that LVT REDUCES pressure on the environment, by stimulating the most productive uses of the best sites. I.e., when people can live in a high-rise apartment building on the convenient, centrally located land you want to garden, it means many more acres in less advantageous locations can be devoted to gardens, parks, etc., and less land is needed for roads and other infrastructure, because LVT aligns both governmental and private incentives with the public interest in efficient allocation of land.

Right. This makes the best sites even more advantageous, raising their rents. LVT + UIE will largely redress the imbalance between residential and business land rents, raising the latter very substantially as the burden of taxation is removed from economic activity.

prices will generally decline

Declining prices, if they persist, generally create a vicious spiral of negatives such as falling profits, closing factories, shrinking employment and incomes, and increasing defaults on loans by companies and individuals.

That's true,

More despicable and misleading context cutting and manipulation. The more consumer prices decline, the more seigniorage government can capture by printing enough money to prevent deflation.

[ingliz]

The vast majority of homeowning workers end up paying far more in taxes than they get back in land rent.

The vast majority of workers do not rent out their homes they live in them.

You favor this system of robbing working people to make housing more expensive

No, I favour expropriating vacant housing, building social housing, and rent controls on privately rented housing to make homes less expensive.

210G

210G as % GDP = 12.9%

A minimum 15% tax take is necessary to ensure basic government functioning.

* Adam and Bevan 2004 and IMF 2005

seigniorage

When economists talk about "printing more money" and "lowering interest rates" they're talking about the same thing. 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.

ECB Interest Rates

Refinancing rate: 0.05%

Deposit rate: - 0.20%

[SueDeNîmes]

Hmm.. I previously thought it'd be a good idea to replace some other taxation with LVT (rather than all or most taxation per Geolibertarianism).

I doubt even that now, without first addressing other issues which would make LVT largely irrelevant.

Kudos to Ingliz.

[Truth To Power]

Hmm.. I previously thought it'd be a good idea to replace some other taxation with LVT (rather than all or most taxation per Geolibertarianism).

I doubt even that now, without first addressing other issues which would make LVT largely irrelevant.

Such as...?

Kudos to Ingliz.

Do you know why working people are impoverished and oppressed, and 12 million of them die of poverty in capitalist countries every year?

Because your parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were all deceived by the same absurdities, red herrings, and fallacies ingliz has used to deceive you:

The vast majority of homeowning workers end up paying far more in taxes than they get back in land rent.

The vast majority of workers do not rent out their homes they live in them.

Another red herring from you. Land rent is not a payment. It is the economic advantage obtainable by using the land. 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. The massive inequality in ownership of land value makes this inevitable.

You favor this system of robbing working people to make housing more expensive

No, I favour expropriating vacant housing,

And you have the nerve to shriek at me about how LVT will "tax pensioners out of their homes"?

YOU PROPOSE TO FLAT-OUT STEAL THEIR HOMES!!

I already proved to you that your method always treats them worse than LVT, because LVT gives them choices in addition to a better version of what you would do to them by force (taking in tenants). My method enables them to be paid justly for the value their investments in improvements create. Yours simply steals that value from them without just compensation.

building social housing,

Which will be allocated to the friends of the commissars who control access to it. Check. We've seen how that plays out in your socialist utopias, thanks.

and rent controls on privately rented housing to make homes less expensive.

Your ignorance of economics is showing. Rent control only makes private housing less expensive to the extent that it makes it worse.

210G

210G as % GDP = 12.9%

A minimum 15% tax take is necessary to ensure basic government functioning.

But that's just another red herring from you, as you are aware that I have already stipulated LVT should not be implemented as a "Single Tax." You just repeat the same fallacious red herring "argument" over and over again, no matter how many times you are shown that it is fallacious.

seigniorage

When economists talk about "printing more money" and "lowering interest rates" they're talking about the same thing.

Nope. Flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective fact, as usual. Lowering interest rates is assumed to stimulate additional bank lending, which in a debt-money system means private commercial banks creating additional demand deposits. Seigniorage revenue from government issuance of fiat money is the result of a completely different process.

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.

The sad thing is, you might actually believe that could be relevant to seigniorage revenue from government fiat money issuance.

ECB Interest Rates

Refinancing rate: 0.05%

Deposit rate: - 0.20%

More red herrings with no relation to what I said.

And Sue finds this sort of garbage merits "kudos"??

Look no further for the explanation of why working people are impoverished and oppressed: they are easily deceived by the most blatantly absurd and fallacious garbage.

[ingliz]

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.

52% of households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes (direct and indirect).

* ONS

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.

Which will be allocated to the friends of the commissars who control access to it.

Social housing is allocated according to need.

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.

I have already stipulated LVT should not be implemented as a "Single Tax."

LVT is not an added tax, it replaces other taxes.

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. 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.

Example:

In Japan today, the monetary base has been growing but prices have been declining,

by printing enough money

You can use monetary policy to start a recession, but not stop one.

seigniorage

Seigniorage is effectively a tax imposed by the government on private agents.

[SilasWegg]

A LVT might have some utility in a smaller nation where people are already highly concentrated. In some larger nation like the US, I do not see it as a feasible system as far as replacing the federal tax system. I suspect there you would see people abandoning property and then corporations destroying them for timber or minerals and leaving the waste for others to clean up as the value of land would drop as the demand for it did as every day type people would not be able to afford the property taxes.

[Truth To Power]

A LVT might have some utility in a smaller nation where people are already highly concentrated. In some larger nation like the US, I do not see it as a feasible system as far as replacing the federal tax system.

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.

I suspect there you would see people abandoning property

Some that can't be used productively would be abandoned. But that's a good thing.

and then corporations destroying them for timber or minerals and leaving the waste for others to clean up

No, any pollution or exhaustion of resources would be charged for the associated loss of value.

as the value of land would drop as the demand for it did

Demand for use is not the same as demand for ownership.

as every day type people would not be able to afford the property taxes.

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.

See how easily your claims are proved absurd? It's always the same.

[SilasWegg]

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.

Therefore it would be bad to replace the US FIT with an LVT as I suspected and you apparently agree with.

Some that can't be used productively would be abandoned. But that's a good thing.

Only in your mind--not in mine.

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, so your system would make it just more affordable to exploit public lands than corporations already have it now.

Demand for use is not the same as demand for ownership.

For most people it is because by owning the land I control the use and what I deem the best use for the land is all that really matters.

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, I do not find having my cost of living increase absurd, nor do I find existing at the whims of a government or corporate lackey's whims reassuring.

See how easily your claims are proved absurd?

Only in your mind. I have not seen you prove anything, let alone anything is absurd (and how ironic that you deem my claims absurd when you agreed with my first one.

It's always the same.

I am sure you think you are always right. The internet is full of people like you--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. Life is absurd, beyond that, the only thing that comes to mind is your position.

[Truth To Power]

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

[ingliz]

the Founding Fathers tried to implement the right idea

Wrong!

"The taxes and expenses of the union, had never yet been apportioned among the states, according to the rule prescribed by the confederation. A satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed; and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable. The proportions had been generally regulated by the supposed number of inhabitants. Congress now proposed to the consideration of the states, an alteration in the articles, providing, that the proportion should be governed by the proportion of white and other free citizens, including those bound in servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons.
To enforce the importance and necessity of adopting and carrying into effect, this system of finance, congress presented an address to the states. This was prepared by a committee consisting of Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Hamilton, who, then and afterwards, held a high rank among American statesmen."

Pitkin, A Political and Civil History of the United States of America

You incorrectly imagine the monetary base is the money supply

"There are several standard measures of the money supply, including the monetary base, M1, and M2. The monetary base is defined as the sum of currency in circulation and reserve balances (deposits held by banks and other depository institutions in their accounts at the Federal Reserve). M1 is defined as the sum of currency held by the public and transaction deposits at depository institutions (which are financial institutions that obtain their funds mainly through deposits from the public, such as commercial banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, and credit unions). M2 is defined as M1 plus savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits (those issued in amounts of less than $100,000), and retail money market mutual fund shares."

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

You have stated that you will FLAT-OUT STEAL OCCUPIED homes

No, what I said was, under a socialist regime, mansions would be converted to separate apartments the owner being gifted one of the apartments.

Owners of a house, living in the house, would be issued a permit allowing them to continue living in their home until death but technically they would still be tenants of the state. Any houses too big for one family would be converted to separate apartments; the owners, of course, being gifted one of the apartments in their former mansion and issued the same permit.

We know how that plays out

Social housing is allocated according to need.

A points system is used to identify which applicants on the waiting list are in greatest housing need. The greater an applicant's housing need, the more points they will be entitled to and the greater the applicant's chance of being offered a Council house.

ill-housed people who need social housing more than some of the people who are in it.

Obviously, those who are allocated social housing will be better off than the ill-housed who are not.

I favour... building social housing

You do not.

Providing social housing occupies land that would otherwise be used more productively

And UK private sector rental housing went from being among the best in Europe to the worst.

Research commissioned by the last Labour government but published after the 2010 general election shows that the accepted view, that rent regulation reduces the size of the sector and discourages investment is not borne out by international comparison. Countries such as Germany balance a large and decent private sector with limits on rent increases and long-term stability for tenants.

not the kind of fiat money system I am talking about.

Every sovereign - without exception - that has been given the unfettered power to print fiat money has eventually printed too much debt-free money, and in the end faced social catastrophe.

That's just more false and absurd garbage from you.

Seignorage arises when the government raises revenue by printing money. The tax is equal to the inflation rate times the real money supply in an all-currency economy in which the money multiplier equals 1. (More generally, the tax collected by the government equals the inflation rate multiplied by the monetary base.) The government collects the tax by printing money to purchase goods and services. The tax is paid by anyone who holds money.

Even though conventional taxes impose their own distortions on the economy, few would argue that this justifies reliance on seigniorage as a deliberate policy choice. Dependence on seigniorage revenue seems, in practice, to be highly correlated with the degree of political instability

seigniorage

Seignorage revenues in Japan were 0.34% of GDP in 1980-90 and only 0.15% in 1990-2000 as the nominal interest rate approached zero.

* At zero interest rate the seignorage revenues are zero.

[Truth To Power]

the Founding Fathers tried to implement the right idea

Wrong!

No, I am objectively correct, and you have kindly posted a quote proving that I am objectively correct:

"The taxes and expenses of the union, had never yet been apportioned among the states, according to the rule prescribed by the confederation. A satisfactory valuation of houses and lands had never yet been completed; and the difficulties in making such a valuation seemed nearly insuperable. The proportions had been generally regulated by the supposed number of inhabitants. Congress now proposed to the consideration of the states, an alteration in the articles, providing, that the proportion should be governed by the proportion of white and other free citizens, including those bound in servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons.
To enforce the importance and necessity of adopting and carrying into effect, this system of finance, congress presented an adress to the states. This was prepared by a committee consisting of Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Hamilton, who, then and afterwards, held a high rank among American statesmen." -- Pitkin, A Political and Civil History of the United States of America

See? You falsely claimed I was wrong, and then posted the proof that I was objectively correct.

What could possibly explain such disgraceful behavior?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: such despicable filth is standard operating procedure for socialists, as they lack any honest way to attack liberty, justice and truth.

You incorrectly imagine the monetary base is the money supply

"There are several standard measures of the money supply, including the monetary base, M1, and M2. The monetary base is defined as the sum of currency in circulation and reserve balances (deposits held by banks and other depository institutions in their accounts at the Federal Reserve). M1 is defined as the sum of currency held by the public and transaction deposits at depository institutions (which are financial institutions that obtain their funds mainly through deposits from the public, such as commercial banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, and credit unions). M2 is defined as M1 plus savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits (those issued in amounts of less than $100,000), and retail money market mutual fund shares."

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

As I said: you incorrectly imagine the monetary base is the money supply.

You have stated that you will FLAT-OUT STEAL OCCUPIED homes

No, what I said was, under a socialist regime, mansions would be converted to separate apartments the owner being gifted one of the apartments.

I.e., being "gifted" a small portion of what has previously been FLAT-OUT STOLEN from him.

Owners of a house, living in the house, would be issued a permit allowing them to continue living in their home until death but technically they would still be tenants of the state. Any houses too big for one family would be converted to separate apartments; the owners, of course, being gifted one of the apartments in their former mansion and issued the same permit.

We know how that plays out

Social housing is allocated according to need.

No, it is not:

A points system is used to identify which applicants on the waiting list are in greatest housing need. The greater an applicant's housing need, the more points they will be entitled to and the greater the applicant's chance of being offered a Council house.

See? People get social housing based on "points" that are determined by the commissar, and typically do not bear any strong relation to actual need.

ill-housed people who need social housing more than some of the people who are in it.

Obviously, those who are allocated social housing will be better off than the ill-housed who are not.

No, many who are allocated social housing by the commissars were ALREADY better off than the homeless who are not.

I favour... building social housing

You do not.

Because I prefer to cure the disease for good and all rather than just temporarily relieve the symptoms for a privileged minority at the expense of the majority, as you advocate:

Providing social housing occupies land that would otherwise be used more productively

See?

And UK private sector rental housing went from being among the best in Europe to the worst.

Research commissioned by the last Labour government but published after the 2010 general election shows that the accepted view, that rent regulation reduces the size of the sector and discourages investment is not borne out by international comparison.

Because international comparisons are invalidated by confounding variables.

Countries such as Germany balance a large and decent private sector with limits on rent increases and long-term stability for tenants.

Irrelevant, as explained above. The German tradition of landowning is very different, and most Germans are tenants. Germany's less stringent rent control policy compared to the UK explains clearly that I am right and you are wrong:

"Germany also loosened regulation of rental caps sooner than many other countries, according to economist Michael Voightländer, who has written extensively about Germany’s housing market. By contrast in the UK, harsher regulation on rented housing stretched well into the 1980s, pushing landlords to cut back on maintenance and driving the quality of housing down still further."

http://qz.com/167887/germany-has-one-of ... hip-rates/

The key is comparing rent caps to inflation rates. Germany's low inflation means its rent caps are actually less strict than Britain's.

not the kind of fiat money system I am talking about.

Every sovereign - without exception - that has been given the unfettered power to print fiat money has eventually printed too much debt-free money, and in the end faced social catastrophe.

That's just flat false, a canard promoted by the purveyors of privately issued debt money. The US government, for example, printed fiat money ("greenbacks") during the Civil War, and it held its value over the subsequent decades far better than any currency issued by the Federal Reserve since its founding. The Qin and Han governments in China issued bronze fiat coins in moderate quantities, but lost a large part of the seigniorage to private counterfeiters (analysis of coin hoards shows that in some periods, counterfeit bronze coins accounted for the majority of the money in circulation). In Song China, the imperial issue of time-limited paper fiat money was not excessive, and was stable for more than a century until the Empire suffered military defeat.

And in any case, I don't propose the sovereign have "unfettered" power to issue fiat money. I propose that fiat money be issued, and transferred to the Treasury for the sovereign to spend into circulation, by an independent Mint whose sole mandate is price stability.

That's just more false and absurd garbage from you.

Seignorage arises when the government raises revenue by printing money. The tax is equal to the inflation rate times the real money supply in an all-currency economy in which the money multiplier equals 1. (More generally, the tax collected by the government equals the inflation rate multiplied by the monetary base.) The government collects the tax by printing money to purchase goods and services. The tax is paid by anyone who holds money.

So when the inflation rate is zero the tax rate is zero, proving me right and you wrong, AGAIN.

Even though conventional taxes impose their own distortions on the economy, few would argue that this justifies reliance on seigniorage as a deliberate policy choice. Dependence on seigniorage revenue seems, in practice, to be highly correlated with the degree of political instability

seigniorage

Seignorage revenues in Japan were 0.34% of GDP in 1980-90 and only 0.15% in 1990-2000 as the nominal interest rate approached zero.

It was the reduced issuance of currency (the 90s were characterized by deflation in Japan, duh) that reduced seigniorage revenue, not the reduced interest rate.

* At zero interest rate the seignorage revenues are zero.

No, that's just false. The interest rate has no effect on seigniorage.

[ingliz]

you have kindly posted a quote proving that I am objectively correct

Don't be silly.

Congress now proposed to the consideration of the states, an alteration in the articles, providing, that the proportion should be governed by the proportion of white and other free citizens, including those bound in servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons.
To enforce the importance and necessity of adopting and carrying into effect, this system of finance, congress presented an address to the states. This was prepared by a committee consisting of Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Hamilton, who, then and afterwards, held a high rank among American statesmen.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: such despicable filth is standard operating procedure for socialists, as they lack any honest way to attack liberty, justice and truth.

you incorrectly imagine the monetary base is the money supply.

There are several standard measures of the money supply, including the monetary base.

People get social housing based on "points" that are determined by the commissar, and typically do not bear any strong relation to actual need.

Guide to points

When you apply to the council housing list, you will be awarded a certain number of points. If you are awarded more than 120 points, you will be sent details of how to bid through the choice-based lettings scheme - Home Connections.

How points are awarded

The number of points you get is based on the information provided by you about your current circumstances on your application form. Points are awarded:

Overcrowding:

for each extra bedroom you need for your household

opposite sex overcrowding: where two people of opposite sex have to share a bedroom and one is aged ten years or older (unless they are either 16 or older and living as a couple)

Medical: If you have a serious or life-threatening medical condition that is made worse by your housing situation. You will be asked to fill in a medical form and it will be assessed by the Housing Medical Officer.

Resident status: If you are a resident of Islington when you apply and you have lived in Islington for at least 3 of the last 5 years.

Waiting time: All applicants will receive 5% of their total housing needs points, excluding residence and waiting time points, for each complete year from the date of the first award of housing needs points. For homeless applicants, this will be for each complete year from the date of issue of the S184 decision.

Threat of homelessness: If you have been given a valid notice to quit by your current landlord, and are therefore threatened with homelessness.

Shared or lack of facilities: If you share two or more of the following with people not on your application:

cooking facilities
bathroom
toilet
cold water supply.

pushing landlords to cut back on maintenance and driving the quality of housing down still further

We have provided over £4m to a number of local authorities... This money will be used to build on the Government’s ongoing success in tackling ‘beds in sheds’.

There are no rent caps. The UK deregulated the private rental sector on the 15 January 1989. What is pushing them now?

The more consumer prices decline, the more seigniorage government can capture by printing enough money to prevent deflation.

No, you cannot.

when the inflation rate is zero the tax rate is zero

The interest rate has no effect on seigniorage

When economists talk about "printing more money" and "lowering interest rates" they're talking about the same thing. 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.

Example:

In Japan today, the monetary base has been growing but prices have been declining.

[Truth To Power]

you have kindly posted a quote proving that I am objectively correct

Don't be silly.

You are the one being "silly" (i.e., factually wrong and disingenuous) as usual. Your quote proved me right. Deal with it:

Congress now proposed to the consideration of the states, an alteration in the articles, providing, that the proportion should be governed by the proportion of white and other free citizens, including those bound in servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons.
To enforce the importance and necessity of adopting and carrying into effect, this system of finance, congress presented an address to the states. This was prepared by a committee consisting of Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Hamilton, who, then and afterwards, held a high rank among American statesmen.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.

The US Constitution wasn't written until 1789. The above quote from Pitkin refers to the events in 1783-4, when the Articles of Confederation, of which you appear never to have heard, were still in effect. The relevant one is Article 8:

All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

you incorrectly imagine the monetary base is the money supply.

There are several standard measures of the money supply, including the monetary base.

The monetary base is never used as the money supply for ANY macroeconomic analysis, ESPECIALLY not inflation. It is used purely for internal banking system purposes. You are objectively wrong, and are inevitably weaseling.

People get social housing based on "points" that are determined by the commissar, and typically do not bear any strong relation to actual need.

Medical: If you have a serious or life-threatening medical condition that is made worse by your housing situation. You will be asked to fill in a medical form and it will be assessed by the Housing Medical Officer.

I.e., the commissar.

pushing landlords to cut back on maintenance and driving the quality of housing down still further

We have provided over £4m to a number of local authorities... This money will be used to build on the Government’s ongoing success in tackling ‘beds in sheds’.

So you agree that rent control pushed private landlords to cut back on maintenance, and are now trying to change the subject again.

There are no rent caps. The UK deregulated the private rental sector on the 15 January 1989.

You are trying to change the subject again, to evade the fact that you have been demolished and humiliated. This is what you said:

Rent regulation covered the whole of the UK private sector rental market from 1915 to 1980.

Remember?

Now you are trying to change the subject to post-1989, even to 2014, and hoping your readers won't notice the bait-and-switch.

Despicable.

What is pushing them now?

Lack of LVT, obviously.

The interest rate has no effect on seigniorage

when the inflation rate is zero the tax rate is zero

So you agree that I am right and you are wrong.

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 multiple times. They've lowered interest rates down to nearly zero -- in some places even less -- and money supply keeps dropping.

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.

Which might be relevant to something somewhere, but not to seigniorage on government-issued currency.

In Japan today, the monetary base has been growing but prices have been declining.

Meaning they have room to get more seigniorage revenue without inflation. Proving me objectively right and you objectively wrong. AGAIN.

[ingliz]

The relevant one is Article 8

Article 8 is an irrelevance.

The period between the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and the drafting of the new Constitution in 1787 was one of weakness, dissension and turmoil. Under the Articles of Confederation, no provisions were made for an executive branch to enforce the laws nor for a national court system to interpret them. The result was virtual chaos. Without the power to collect taxes, the federal government plunged into debt.*

There is scarcely anything that can wound the pride or degrade the character of an independent nation which we do not experience... we owe debts to foreigners and to our own citizens... these remain without any proper or satisfactory provision for their discharge... We have neither troops. nor treasury, nor government.

* USIA

weaseling

The central bank controls changes in money supply by manipulating the monetary base, expanding or contracting it at will, according to the needs of the economy.

I.e., the commissar.

No, a doctor

and

if you have very complex medical problems and/or we need additional information we will contact your doctor or hospital and ask for it.

So you agree that rent control pushed private landlords to cut back on maintenance,

No, I put it down to greed as they play the same tricks without controls.

We have provided over £4m to a number of local authorities... This money will be used to build on the Government’s ongoing success in tackling ‘beds in sheds’.

demolished and humiliated

The more consumer prices decline

When the inflation rate is zero, the tax rate is zero

when the inflation rate is zero, the tax rate is zero

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.

At zero interest rate, seignorage revenues are zero.

the more seigniorage government can capture

How? Seignorage revenues are zero in both instances.

[Truth To Power]

The relevant one is Article 8

Article 8 is an irrelevance.

Article 8 proves me right and you wrong.

The period between the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and the drafting of the new Constitution in 1787 was one of weakness, dissension and turmoil. Under the Articles of Confederation, no provisions were made for an executive branch to enforce the laws nor for a national court system to interpret them. The result was virtual chaos. Without the power to collect taxes, the federal government plunged into debt.*

That's the period in question, when the Founding Fathers rightly tried to implement LVT to fund the federal government. Greedy, evil landowners refused to pay, and threatened to start and finance a civil war if the federal government tried to collect.

weaseling

The central bank controls changes in money supply by manipulating the monetary base, expanding or contracting it at will, according to the needs of the economy.

Not in a fiat money system; you are wrong, I am right.

I.e., the commissar.

No, a doctor

No, the commissar, who tells the doctor what to do, who to approve, etc.

if you have very complex medical problems and/or we need additional information we will contact your doctor or hospital and ask for it.

Always the fine-sounding socialist theory, which turns into the socialist jackboot in practice.

So you agree that rent control pushed private landlords to cut back on maintenance,

No, I put it down to greed as they play the same tricks without controls.

Nope. They can't, because the market makes it unprofitable: their tenants just go elsewhere. Rent control means all landlords are pushed to cut back on maintenance, so tenants have no alternative.

We have provided over £4m to a number of local authorities...

You incorrectly imagine this could be relevant to private landlords' business decisions.

This money will be used to build on the Government’s ongoing success in tackling ‘beds in sheds’.

A "success" that all too obviously exists only in your imagination.

The more consumer prices decline

When the inflation rate is zero, the tax rate is zero

But you can still get seigniorage revenue, just without removing any private citizens' purchasing power (i.e., without taxation). Again proving me right and you wrong.

when the inflation rate is zero, the tax rate is zero

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 multiple times. That refers to debt money, not fiat money. Debt money yields no seigniorage, only interest.

You just keep repeating claims you know have already been proved false.

At zero interest rate, seignorage revenues are zero.

False and absurd. The two are not even related. You appear not even to know the difference between debt money and fiat money.

the more seigniorage government can capture

How? Seignorage revenues are zero in both instances.

False and absurd. You have no idea what you are even talking about. None.

[SilasWegg]

A LVT tax in the US to replace federal income taxes would be an economic disaster. It does little more than try to shift the tax burden from higher wage urban apartment dwellers and their landlords onto lower wage rural property owners. Fly-over country feeds the bellies and wallets of Park Avenue and the world. This idea undoubtedly mostly appeals to the same people who share posts on their Facebook about red states being welfare states.

A LVT would do little more than force people to return to post-modern serfdom, never being able to afford any measure of independence. The US has an over abundance of land so there is no need to control its use in such an authoritarian fashion. If society is suffering a great enough ill, it already has the power to seize the land from its owner using eminent domain.

[ingliz]

the Founding Fathers rightly tried to implement LVT to fund the federal government.

No, they did not.

The country and its states were bankrupt and in considerable debt. The states had printed $209 million of notes, Congress $241 million, yet they drew only small amounts of revenue from taxation – Congress drew none at all.

Greedy, evil landowners refused to pay

Ordinary Americans, often returned unpaid or underpaid Continental soldiers, borrowed heavily from urban creditors in order to establish farms or homes – then were unable to meet repayments due to the slumping agricultural market of the mid-1780s. Some state assemblies responded to this suffering, tension, unrest and (by 1786) uprisings by easing taxation and cancelling or reducing private debt.

were unable to meet repayments due to the slumping agricultural market of the mid-1780s.

In mid-1785, prices for tobacco – a major export – slipped 50 per cent. Wholesale prices for farm products in Philadelphia in 1786 dropped by nearly two-thirds from 1784 levels. The economy declined by 41 per cent between 1774 and 1790.

That refers to debt money, not fiat money

I am talking about debt-money systems because all modern capitalist countries use them.

Roubini is only talking about debt money systems (because all modern capitalist countries use them)

seignorage

Currently, under the rules governing monetary operations of major central banks (including the central bank of the USA), seigniorage on bank notes is simply defined as the interest payments received by central banks on the total amount of currency issued. This usually takes the form of interest payments on treasury bonds purchased by central banks, putting more dollars into circulation.

Always the fine-sounding socialist theory, which turns into the socialist jackboot in practice.

You incorrectly imagine this could be relevant to private landlords' business decisions.

Are you saying criminal prosecution is not a deterrent?

£24,000 fine for beds in shed landlord

The single storey illegal structure housed a family of three on one side of the building and the other side of the building was occupied by three single males. The building was in an appalling condition. The roof was leaking, there were dangerous electrics, some of the rooms had no natural lighting or ventilation, there was no fire alarm or fire doors and no safe means of escape in the event of a fire. A fire in this building could have resulted in multiple fatalities.

A "success" that all too obviously exists only in your imagination.

I am not the Department for Communities and Local Government.