[Truth To Power]

so it isn't worth anything.

2 bedroom 17th Century cottage: £325,000

New build two bedroom cottage: £325,000

The old one is in a better location, and has been updated, repaired, and restored. The recent investments in improvements also have value, which
will over time depreciate.

on how much valuable land?

Same price, same area, same amount of valuable land.

Evidence? Of course not.

No.

Yes

No:

Quarry Bank Mill and Styal Estate, Cheshire is still a working Cotton Mill producing over 9,000m (10,000 yards) of cloth each year.

?? It's a frickin' MUSEUM!!

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/quarry-bank/

It's owned by the National Trust, and has benefited from enormous expenditures on restoration. When you spend money on restoration, repairs, etc., that subsequent investment in improvements ALSO starts at its full value, then depreciates. Duh.

you "forgot"

These could raise a few to several percent of GDP

£330billion + 4% GDP = £394 billion

Context chopping again, I see....

I already told you how fair and beneficial revenue sources could raise about 30% of GDP:

First, there is all the commercial, industrial and agricultural land to charge LVT on, and which gets no UIE. That's nearly 10% of GDP right there, added to the 13.3% from residential land. Then there are natural resources in addition to locations that can be taxed, such as broadcast spectrum, oil and other mineral resources, forests, etc. [i]These could raise a few to several percent of GDP, depending on the country. I also advocate removing private banksters' privilege of issuing money, and using the seigniorage from government money issue as a source of public revenue. That could raise a few percent of GDP without inflation in the kind of rapidly growing economy LVT would make possible. I also advocate Pigovian taxes on things like industrial pollution, alcohol, tobacco, and currently illegal drugs, which should be legalized and taxed. Call it another few percent of GDP. The total revenue is then near 30% of GDP, enough to fund a government that is not spending most of its revenue trying to undo the harm caused by unjust and economically destructive taxes.[/i]

Remember? And as already explained, removing the burden of unjust taxes increases potential LVT revenue even more. By 5% of GDP? 10%? 20%? We won't know until we do it.

Pensions: £154.7 billion

Healthcare: Central £131.8 billion; Local £3.3 billion

Education: Central £43.4 billion; Local £48.6 billion

Oops, no money left.

Oops, you're makin' $#!+ up again, as proved above.

Of course, you could always cut.

I am definitely going to cut the welfare subsidies to rich, greedy takers.

Personally, I don't think pensions should be designed to maintain the standard of living people had when they were working, and the most generous ones should be cut quite a lot.

Cut pensions - Hidden pension charges on private pensions can almost halve the value of people’s retirement saving

Private pensions?? What on earth do you erroneously imagine they could have to do with public revenue?

Cut healthcare - Medical bills cause 62 percent of bankruptcies in the US.

And transfer 10% of GDP to medical rent seekers. I can cut healthcare and improve health outcomes by SHUTTING THE RENTIERS OUT.

Cut education - Average private school fees are now more than minimum wage.

What on earth do you erroneously imagine private school fees could have to do with public revenue?

which the UIE ends.

£834 p.a.?

Yep. Half the median land value used is enough to secure access to economic opportunity. Remember, the economic action happens at the margin.

For a guy who preaches proletarian revolution, suddenly you're awfully sensitive to civil disorder

Your tweaking of the system so the boss class can screw the workers more efficiently is not a revolution.

So many errors, so little time...

There is no "boss" class screwing the workers. Managers are also workers, and except for a tiny minority at the very top, they are typically not taking more than they contribute. There is a RENTIER class (including the grossly overpaid CEOs) that IS taking more than it contributes, and the revolution I propose to get them off the backs of the workers is the real revolution, the revolution that all the other revolutions should have been, and the revolution that will make all the future revolutions unnecessary.

No, that's false and absurd, and has no basis in fact

According to the Centre for Policy Studies, 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.

They obviously don't understand tax incidence, nor do they understand how those transfers are taken by landowners. Think: how is it possible for those people to get so much transferred to them and still stay poor? Obviously, it's all being taken away again. Stopping that is more than just a "tweak."

[ingliz]

The old one is in a better location

Not according to you. The rural location of the old house outside of the village and its amenities should bring down the value of the land upon which it sits, not increase it.

residential land values fall off a cliff more than 30 minutes from the nearest hospital

In 1963, I was living in the UK (Lincolnshire) in a cottage 6 miles from the nearest village and over a mile from our nearest neighbour. That winter a military helicopter dropped food and coal in the field next to our house.

Evidence?

Follow the links given.

When you spend money on restoration, repairs, etc., that subsequent investment in improvements ALSO starts at its full value,

So you were bullshitting when you said old houses are worth nothing?

It's a frickin' MUSEUM!!

It is still a working Cotton Mill producing over 9,000m (10,000 yards) of cloth each year.

subsequent investment in improvements ALSO starts at its full value, then depreciates. Duh.

So you were bullshitting when you said old factories are worth nothing?

The total revenue is then near 30% of GDP

In 2009/2010, government spending as a % of GDP was approx 47% of GDP

In 2013/14, government spending as a % of GDP was approx 41.2% of GDP

cuts are fuelling England's rapidly worsening homelessness crisis

removing the burden of unjust taxes increases potential LVT revenue even more. By 5% of GDP? 10%? 20%?

So you were bullshitting when you said you would reduce taxation?

If you are not bullshitting.

What on earth do you erroneously imagine they could have to do with public revenue?

You are cutting state pensions.

What on earth do you erroneously imagine they could have to do with public revenue?

You are cutting state healthcare.

What on earth do you erroneously imagine they could have to do with public revenue?

You are cutting state education.

There is no "boss" class screwing the workers.

If the workers are not being screwed and everything is hunky-dory what is your argument. You have already said the capitalists and landowners are one.

Net financial wealth consists largely of stocks, whose value is largely based on land and other natural resources that LVT would tax, and mortgage debt, which is based on land.

Of course, you say they wear two hats, and somehow that makes them both saints and sinners, but it's the same head.

the revolution that will make all the future revolutions unnecessary.

Obviously, it's all being taken away again. Stopping that is more than just a "tweak."

Your tax will not stop the taking away, it will enable the bosses to take more.

[Truth To Power]

The old one is in a better location

Not according to you. The rural location of the old house outside of the village and its amenities should bring down the value of the land upon which it sits, not increase it.

Not at all. The photos show houses adjacent to the cottage, and the ad even makes a point of describing all the amenities that are close by.

residential land values fall off a cliff more than 30 minutes from the nearest hospital

In 1963, I was living in the UK (Lincolnshire) in a cottage 6 miles from the nearest village and over a mile from our nearest neighbour. That winter a military helicopter dropped food and coal in the field next to our house.

And...?

Evidence?

Follow the links given.

I did. They of course do not say what you claim they say.

When you spend money on restoration, repairs, etc., that subsequent investment in improvements ALSO starts at its full value,

So you were bullshitting when you said old houses are worth nothing?

No, but an old house is an old house. The ones that have been restored are partly new houses. The cottage ad even mentions several substantial updates.

It's a frickin' MUSEUM!!

It is still a working Cotton Mill producing over 9,000m (10,000 yards) of cloth each year.

Or about 40 yards a DAY. That is not a working cotton mill. It is merely an antique in demonstrable working condition.

When products get really old, and almost every similar product is gone, they start to have rarity value even though they don't have any practical value. You are absurdly claiming that this rarity or antiquity value somehow deletes the fact of depreciation, ignoring the fact that antiques have value PRECISELY AND ONLY BECAUSE almost all the similar items have depreciated to worthlessness and vanished. You are, as usual, claiming support from facts that actually prove you wrong.

subsequent investment in improvements ALSO starts at its full value, then depreciates. Duh.

So you were bullshitting when you said old factories are worth nothing?

<yawn> How much of it is actually old?

The total revenue is then near 30% of GDP

In 2009/2010, government spending as a % of GDP was approx 47% of GDP

In 2013/14, government spending as a % of GDP was approx 41.2% of GDP

Which is still too much, when it is paid for by robbing workers to subsidize landowners and other rich, greedy takers.

LVT + UIE makes a lot of income support spending unnecessary, and government issued fiat money makes interest on government debt unnecessary. Ending medical rent seeking makes health care far less costly, so that can be cut, too.

cuts are fuelling England's rapidly worsening homelessness crisis

But homelessness -- which the UIE eliminates -- ends up costing more than housing. The homelessness -- actually landlessness -- crisis is caused entirely by the landowner privilege that you demand be retained.

removing the burden of unjust taxes increases potential LVT revenue even more. By 5% of GDP? 10%? 20%?

So you were bullshitting when you said you would reduce taxation?

I said I would reduce unfair and destructive taxation. I have no qualms about recovering 80% of GDP in taxes, if GDP is 80% rent. No one else has a rightful claim to it.

What on earth do you erroneously imagine they could have to do with public revenue?

You are cutting state pensions.

So you agree it is irrelevant.

What on earth do you erroneously imagine they could have to do with public revenue?

You are cutting state healthcare.

Only the rents of privilege, so that reduces costs for everyone.

What on earth do you erroneously imagine they could have to do with public revenue?

You are cutting state education.

Direct, verbatim, in-context quote?

Of course not.

There is no "boss" class screwing the workers.

If the workers are not being screwed and everything is hunky-dory what is your argument.

In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE I WROTE, which you carefully snipped (as another poster has accurately observed, you always know exactly what you are doing when you snip the required context, and it is always entirely deliberate), I stated that the workers ARE being screwed by the RENTIER class.

You know this.

You have already said the capitalists and landowners are one.

I have stated explicitly, multiple times, that they are not.

Net financial wealth consists largely of stocks, whose value is largely based on land and other natural resources that LVT would tax, and mortgage debt, which is based on land.

Of course, you say they wear two hats, and somehow that makes them both saints and sinners, but it's the same head.

That is typical anti-intellectual socialist garbage: refusal to make the crucial distinction. It's like saying there is no difference between nutritious food and junk food, because both fat and thin people eat both. But the difference is that you don't GET fat by eating nutritious food, but by eating junk food, just as you don't GET rich by owning capital goods, but by owning privileges.

Little of what constitutes "financial wealth" is actually capital goods (and the biggest piece of that is real estate improvements, which statistics commingle with land). It's mostly bundled and financialized land and other natural resources, privileges like IP monopolies, bankster-issued debt money, etc.

Obviously, it's all being taken away again. Stopping that is more than just a "tweak."

Your tax will not stop the taking away, it will enable the bosses to take more.

More false and absurd garbage. HOW are they going to take more? They won't have the privileges you demand they be allowed to keep, so they will have no power to take anything without giving value in return.

[ingliz]

photos show houses adjacent to the cottage,

Kingston Blount is little more than a hamlet. Its amenities are a pub, a playing field, and a rubbish tip. Aston Rowant was the village I was referring to.

a point of describing all the amenities

No hospital though.

residential land values fall off a cliff more than 30 minutes from the nearest hospital

And...?

It shows how easy it is to get cut off in a rural location in a nation unprepared for severe weather events.

they start to have rarity value

Is cloth rare?

they don't have any practical value.

Are you saying cloth has no value?

Which is still too much [41%], when it is paid for by robbing workers

But it's OK to take twice that when you are doing the robbing.

I have no qualms about recovering 80% of GDP in taxes

Direct, verbatim, in-context quote?

Public education could be more efficient

LVT + UIE makes a lot of income support spending unnecessary

Why?

we would expect them [landlords] to charge more

LVT increases housing costs and the UIE is a joke.

So you agree it is irrelevant.

No.

If you cut state pensions workers will be forced to seek out private pension providers whose "hidden charges can almost halve the value of people’s retirement saving".

you don't GET fat by eating nutritious food

Bullshit! Healthy foods can make you fat because they are high in sugar, calories and fat. Serving size matters.

HOW are they going to take more?

The main reason people cannot buy a house now is they are unable to raise the deposit. As the cost of an 'improvement' will be the same as a deposit under your scheme, they will still be unable to buy a house. When you refuse to provide social housing the rentier class benefits.

we would expect them [landlords] to charge more

[ElVeeTee2BFree]

[Truth To Power]

photos show houses adjacent to the cottage,

Kingston Blount is little more than a hamlet. Its amenities are a pub, a playing field, and a rubbish tip. Aston Rowant was the village I was referring to.

a point of describing all the amenities

No hospital though.

Is the nearest one more than 30 minutes away?

residential land values fall off a cliff more than 30 minutes from the nearest hospital

And...?

It shows how easy it is to get cut off in a rural location in a nation unprepared for severe weather events.

So, just more irrelevancy from you.

they start to have rarity value

Is cloth rare?

No, but honest discussion on the part of LVT opponents is.

they don't have any practical value.

Are you saying cloth has no value?

Are you saying cloth is real estate?

Which is still too much [41%], when it is paid for by robbing workers

But it's OK to take twice that when you are doing the robbing.

A voluntary, beneficiary-pay, market-based, value-for-value transaction is not robbing.

Direct, verbatim, in-context quote?

Public education could be more efficient

So, no quote. Check.

LVT + UIE makes a lot of income support spending unnecessary

Why?

Because people have jobs instead of being unemployed; prices and the cost of living in terms of labor are lower absent the burden of taxation; and the UIE substitutes for part or all of the money given to the landlord.

we would expect them [landlords] to charge more

LVT increases housing costs

Only to the extent that it also makes people willing and able to pay more for the superior advantages of living in an LVT society: housing costs more in rich countries than in poor ones, duh.

and the UIE is a joke.

It is housing "benefits" that just shovel more unearned wealth into landowners' pockets that are the joke.

If you cut state pensions workers will be forced to seek out private pension providers whose "hidden charges can almost halve the value of people’s retirement saving".

Nope. Not when the cuts are to the excessive pensions of rich ex-civil servants who don't need or deserve the money, or are balanced by the UIE.

you don't GET fat by eating nutritious food

Bullshit!

Fact.

Healthy foods can make you fat because they are high in sugar, calories and fat.

Uh, no. Healthy foods AREN'T high in sugar, calories or fat. They are high in protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals.

Serving size matters.

But healthy foods are more filling per calorie, so people can't (or don't want to) eat large servings of them.

HOW are they going to take more?

The main reason people cannot buy a house now is they are unable to raise the deposit.

Typical socialist anti-intellectual refusal to know the relevant facts. The reason they can't raise the deposit is that their earnings are being taken from them and given to landowners in the form of higher land value. I.e., the money they could have used for a deposit goes instead to landowners in the form of the higher land prices that make the required deposit even higher. It is THEIR OWN MONEY that is being taken from them and used to make housing TOO EXPENSIVE for them to afford even a deposit on.

As the cost of an 'improvement' will be the same as a deposit under your scheme,

Nope. Flat false. Improvements will range in price from near-zero to more than the full construction cost of new improvements.

they will still be unable to buy a house.

Refuted many times.

When you refuse to provide social housing the rentier class benefits.

Garbage, and the exact, diametric opposite of the truth. Providing social housing occupies land that would otherwise be used more productively, thus driving up land rents on other land and shoveling even more rent into rentiers' pockets in return for nothing. That's the subtle, insidious genius of land rent: anything you try to fix the problem by any method other than taking the land rent away from the landowner just gets turned around, and ends up making things worse. We've already seen this play out a hundred times.

we would expect them [landlords] to charge more

Of people who have become willing and able to pay for more. Hello?

Why do you always have to delete the context that proves you wrong?

Oh. Right.

[ingliz]

Is the nearest one more than 30 minutes away?

Yes, it could be.

In 1963, I was living in the UK (Lincolnshire) in a cottage 6 miles from the nearest village and over a mile from our nearest neighbour. That winter a military helicopter dropped food and coal in the field next to our house.

South Didcot Community Hospital - 6 miles W
Ridgeway Day Hospital - 6 miles W
Littlemore Hospital - 8 miles NW
Abingdon Mental Health Centre - 8 miles W
Churchill Hospital - 9 miles NW
Manzil Day Hospital - 10 miles NW
Park Hospital - 10 miles NW
Nuffield Orthopaedic NHS Trust - 10 miles N
Warneford Hospital - 10 miles NW

The nearest doctor's surgery:

South East Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust - 2 miles S

So, no quote. Check.

It seems you cannot remember your own argument.

Public education could be more efficient, maybe by making more use of computer instruction.

Because people have jobs instead of being unemployed

Teachers?

Healthy foods AREN'T high in sugar, calories or fat.

Healthy foods that ARE high in sugar, calories or fat.

Avocado: nutrients and antioxidants, high in fat and calorically dense.

Red wine: reduced risk for heart disease, Alzheimer's, certain types of cancers. A 5-ounce serving is about 130 calories.

Nuts: omega-3 fatty acids, protein, vitamin E, and fiber—but they're also high in calories.

Muesli: high in fat and calorically dense.

Dried fruit: high in sugar

Dark Chocolate: polyphenols, high in fat and calories

Yogurt: high in fat and calorically dense.

etc, etc.

The reason they can't raise the deposit

Under your scheme, the reason the bottom three quintiles can't raise the deposit is that their earnings are being taken from them and given to the government in the form of higher taxes.

prices and the cost of living in terms of labor are lower absent the burden of taxation

The bottom three quintiles will pay more tax.

According to the Centre for Policy Studies, 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.

[Truth To Power]

Is the nearest one more than 30 minutes away?

Yes, it could be.

So you are aware that it isn't.

In 1963, I was living in the UK (Lincolnshire) in a cottage 6 miles from the nearest village and over a mile from our nearest neighbour. That winter a military helicopter dropped food and coal in the field next to our house.

South Didcot Community Hospital - 6 miles W
Ridgeway Day Hospital - 6 miles W
Littlemore Hospital - 8 miles NW
Abingdon Mental Health Centre - 8 miles W
Churchill Hospital - 9 miles NW
Manzil Day Hospital - 10 miles NW
Park Hospital - 10 miles NW
Nuffield Orthopaedic NHS Trust - 10 miles N
Warneford Hospital - 10 miles NW

The nearest doctor's surgery:

South East Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust - 2 miles S

So, much less than 30 min away.

So, no quote. Check.

It seems you cannot remember your own argument.

It seems I can, but you cannot READ my argument, even when you are looking right at it.

Public education could be more efficient, maybe by making more use of computer instruction.

Because people have jobs instead of being unemployed

Teachers?

Education is not measured by teacher numbers.

Healthy foods AREN'T high in sugar, calories or fat.

Healthy foods that ARE high in sugar, calories or fat.

Avocado: nutrients and antioxidants, high in fat and calorically dense.

Avocadoes are only high in fat for a fruit.

Red wine: reduced risk for heart disease, Alzheimer's, certain types of cancers. A 5-ounce serving is about 130 calories.

The evidence on red wine's overall health effects is ambiguous, and it is easily over-consumed, so it does not qualify as a healthy food.

Nuts: omega-3 fatty acids, protein, vitamin E, and fiber—but they're also high in calories.

Nuts are high in fat, but have almost no sugar. Much more importantly, they don't make you fat. The three foods associated with the lowest body fat are raw vegetables, yogurt, and nuts.

So you are just factually wrong. As usual.

Muesli: high in fat and calorically dense.

Muesli is promoted as healthy, and is certainly better than typical breakfast cereal, but it is not especially healthy.

Dried fruit: high in sugar

Not healthy.

Dark Chocolate: polyphenols, high in fat and calories

May have some benefit, but like wine, is easily over-consumed. Does not qualify as healthy food.

Yogurt: high in fat and calorically dense.

Yogurt is not high in fat or calorically dense unless it has been made that way by adding fat or sugar, and more importantly, eating it is associated with low, not high, body fat.

etc, etc.

<yawn>

The reason they can't raise the deposit

Under your scheme, the reason the bottom three quintiles can't raise the deposit is that their earnings are being taken from them and given to the government in the form of higher taxes.

No, your claims are all false and absurd, as is invariably the case with LVT opponents. As LVT burdens landowning exclusively, taking NOTHING from anyone's earnings, it makes it easier for people who are not landowners (the bottom quintiles), who are the only ones who need deposits, to buy homes, both by relieving them of the burden of taxation on their wages and consumption and by reducing land prices to near zero. As the mathematics of depreciation guarantee there are always a lot of homes with low improvement value in the inventory, almost anyone will be able to buy a home outright for just a few months' (untaxed) wages: i.e., less than the DEPOSIT they would have to pay just to get a mortgage under the current system.


Your claims are the exact, diametric opposite of the truth.

prices and the cost of living in terms of labor are lower absent the burden of taxation

The bottom three quintiles will pay more tax.

No, your claims are all false and absurd.

According to the Centre for Policy Studies, 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.

Already refuted. The Centre is incorrectly claiming that the basis for comparison of ability to pay is income, not wealth. That falsely and deceitfully calls retired real estate millionaires (even billionaires) with low incomes "poor." It is also ignoring burden shifting and the fact that those transfers are mostly just taken by landlords in increased rents and mortgage lenders in increased interest.

[ingliz]

So you are aware that it isn't.

No, I am aware it could be.

Example:

In November 1952, at Whipsnade Chilterns, level snow lay 10 inches deep with drifts eight feet high in the village.

Education is not measured by teacher numbers.

Large class size negatively affects students’ academic performance.

Nye et al (2001a) explored the relationship between the number of years that students participated in Project STAR small classes and their level of achievement. After one year, the students in smaller classes had significantly higher achievement scores on the Stanford Achievement Test reading and mathematics subtests than students in larger classes. The gap in scores widened after two years, indicating that the effects of small classes are cumulative.

Not healthy

Healthy eating means consuming the right quantities of foods from all food groups.

We are eating less than we used to but our rates of energy output have gone down even further.

Eating too much makes you fat.

<yawn>

No, your claims are all false and absurd.

Home-owners are 57% of all households within the lowest income decile (measured before housing costs).

Home-owners are 50% of all households not claiming Income Support, but with incomes below Income Support levels.

Already refuted

No

Cash benefits provided 47% of gross income for households in the bottom quintile group

The Centre is incorrectly claiming that the basis for comparison of ability to pay is income, not wealth

I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[Truth To Power]

So you are aware that it isn't.

No, I am aware it could be.

Example:

In November 1952, at Whipsnade Chilterns, level snow lay 10 inches deep with drifts eight feet high in the village.

So you are aware that it isn't, and that your quotation of me out of context made it seem like the facts were the opposite of what they actually were.

Education is not measured by teacher numbers.

Large class size negatively affects students’ academic performance.

Nye et al (2001a) explored the relationship between the number of years that students participated in Project STAR small classes and their level of achievement. After one year, the students in smaller classes had significantly higher achievement scores on the Stanford Achievement Test reading and mathematics subtests than students in larger classes. The gap in scores widened after two years, indicating that the effects of small classes are cumulative.

But that's irrelevant to your claim, because there is no indication of how effective other classroom resources of equivalent cost would have been, and no comparison at all with non-classroom education.

Not healthy

Healthy eating means consuming the right quantities of foods from all food groups.

But healthy eating is not the same as eating healthy food.

You will do anything to delete the crucial facts from your brain, won't you?

Eating too much makes you fat.

Typical socialist anti-intellectual refusal to make the crucial distinction.

No, your claims are all false and absurd.

Home-owners are 57% of all households within the lowest income decile (measured before housing costs).

But income is not an accurate measure of wealth or ability to pay, so it's irrelevant. Homeownership and wealth increase with age, but income declines sharply after retirement, completely invalidating all statistics that try to treat income as a proxy for wealth, economic class, or ability to pay.

Any time anyone presents income statistics as though they represented wealth, economic class, or ability to pay, their intention is to deceive.

Home-owners are 50% of all households not claiming Income Support, but with incomes below Income Support levels.

They aren't claiming income support because they are too rich to pass the means test. Duh.

Already refuted

No

Yes:

Cash benefits provided 47% of gross income for households in the bottom quintile group

See?

The Centre is incorrectly claiming that the basis for comparison of ability to pay is income, not wealth

I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

No, they are. They are presenting income as if it were a valid proxy for wealth, class, or ability to pay. It's not, and they know it, so their intention is to deceive.

[ingliz]

So you are aware that it isn't

No, I am aware that it could be.

healthy eating is not the same as eating healthy food.

All food fit to eat is healthy. The crucial part of healthy eating is a balanced diet. A balanced diet - or a good diet - means consuming from all the different food groups in the right quantities.

<yawn>

They aren't claiming income support because they are too rich to pass the means test.

The lowest take-up rates are among owner-occupiers where equal proportions (45%) claim all the benefits to which they are entitled and claim none of them

The main reasons they aren't claiming income support are the fear of penalty for error; the unpleasantness of the claim process; lack of information giving rise to information search costs; perceived loss of self-respect; and social stigma associated with benefit dependence.

* Ritchie, 1988; Costigan et. al., 1999

They are presenting income as if it were a valid proxy for wealth, class, or ability to pay.

No, they are comparing taxes less transfers as a proportion of original income.

[Truth To Power]

So you are aware that it isn't

No, I am aware that it could be.

If the facts of objective reality were different from what they are.

healthy eating is not the same as eating healthy food.

All food fit to eat is healthy.

The existence of the term, "junk food" proves you wrong.

The crucial part of healthy eating is a balanced diet. A balanced diet - or a good diet - means consuming from all the different food groups in the right quantities.

The right quantity of unhealthy food being zero.

They aren't claiming income support because they are too rich to pass the means test.

The lowest take-up rates are among owner-occupiers where equal proportions (45%) claim all the benefits to which they are entitled and claim none of them

The main reasons they aren't claiming income support are the fear of penalty for error; the unpleasantness of the claim process; lack of information giving rise to information search costs; perceived loss of self-respect; and social stigma associated with benefit dependence.

* Ritchie, 1988; Costigan et. al., 1999

But mostly moral aversion to taking money from people they know are poorer.

They are presenting income as if it were a valid proxy for wealth, class, or ability to pay.

No, they are comparing taxes less transfers as a proportion of original income.

But the only reason that could be of interest is if original income is being presented as the appropriate criterion for paying taxes and receiving transfers, which it can't be unless it is considered the measure of wealth or ability to pay. Which it isn't.

[ingliz]

The existence of the term, "junk food" proves you wrong.

'Junk food’ is a misnomer as food cannot be junk. It is the amount of food that we intake which makes it bad or good.

<yawn>

But mostly moral aversion to taking money from people they know are poorer.

No, it is not. It is mostly an aversion to having to listen to ignorant self-righteous arseholes manipulate the statistics and berate them for their perceived moral failure, to the stigma attached to claiming.

The signatories of this letter have different views on the changes to the benefit system being undertaken by this Government. What unites us is the belief that the debate around these reforms should be based on truthful information. As Christians we believe that all people are made in the image of God, and as such are to be loved and valued. At the very least, the most vulnerable deserve to be spoken of truthfully and with respect.

We ask you, as Prime Minister and as leader of the Conservative Party, to ensure that the record is put straight, and that statistics are no longer manipulated in a way which stigmatises the poorest in our society. We promise to support you in efforts to ensure that debates on poverty are rooted in fact and not on assertion.

wealth

What wealth? You said their land and improvements are worthless.

land would have very little exchange value under LVT

depreciation is exponential

[Truth To Power]

The existence of the term, "junk food" proves you wrong.

'Junk food’ is a misnomer as food cannot be junk.

Wrong. Food that is unnaturally low in nutrients and high in calories is junk.

It is the amount of food that we intake which makes it bad or good.

Garbage. Junk food like deep-fried snacks are bad from the first bite, while one can eat as much as one wishes of most fresh fruit and vegetables with purely beneficial effects on health.

But mostly moral aversion to taking money from people they know are poorer.

No, it is not. It is mostly an aversion to having to listen to ignorant self-righteous arseholes manipulate the statistics and berate them for their perceived moral failure, to the stigma attached to claiming.

There is rightly a stigma attached to undeserving rich people claiming benefits funded by taxes on the deserving poor.

The signatories of this letter have different views on the changes to the benefit system being undertaken by this Government. What unites us is the belief that the debate around these reforms should be based on truthful information. As Christians we believe that all people are made in the image of God, and as such are to be loved and valued. At the very least, the most vulnerable deserve to be spoken of truthfully and with respect.

We ask you, as Prime Minister and as leader of the Conservative Party, to ensure that the record is put straight, and that statistics are no longer manipulated in a way which stigmatises the poorest in our society. We promise to support you in efforts to ensure that debates on poverty are rooted in fact and not on assertion.

"Assertion" would be that retired millionaire landowners with low incomes are poor. "Fact" would be that they are rich.

wealth

What wealth? You said their land and improvements are worthless.

No, of course I didn't, as the quotes you offer prove:

land would have very little exchange value under LVT

See? "Would under LVT," not "does."

depreciation is exponential

Which says how rapidly it declines, not that it is always zero.

See? Your claim about what I said was baldly false.

[ingliz]

undeserving rich

12% of pensioner households are worth less than £500.*

the deserving poor

Simple-minded, mean-spirited shite! Poverty is systemic, a result of economic and political failings rather than individual shortcomings.

retired millionaire landowners

It is incorrect to assume that the vast majority of British pensioners are well-off and well-heeled. After a lifetime of work, millions of pensioners have relatively little to show for it. 12% of pensioner households are worth less than £500.


* ONS

[Truth To Power]

undeserving rich

More of your despicable chopping and manipulation of context to remove meaning and mislead your readers.

Disgraceful.

12% of pensioner households are worth less than £500.*

How many of them are landowners, and thus might not be far better off with LVT?

As if we don't both know the answer is zero....

the deserving poor

More of your despicable chopping and manipulation of context to remove meaning and mislead your readers.

Disgraceful.

Simple-minded, mean-spirited shite!

That's your typical socialist's anti-intellectual, anti-scientific refusal to make the crucial distinctions.

Many poor people have suffered misfortune through no fault of their own.

But others have brought misfortune onto themselves by their own voluntary actions.

Most poor people have been robbed of a large part of their earnings, especially through paying for government twice: both in land rent and the taxes that create it.

But others have had no interest in earning.

All poor people (in advanced countries, anyway) have been deprived of opportunity by private landowning.

But some have squandered such opportunity as they have had.

In each case an honest appreciation of the facts reveals the former to be deserving, the latter, not so much.

Poverty is systemic, a result of economic and political failings rather than individual shortcomings.

Usually, yes, mainly because of the effects of landowner greed and privilege, and the taxation that supports it, which you rationalize and defend, and want to enshrine permanently. But not always.

retired millionaire landowners

It is incorrect to assume that the vast majority of British pensioners are well-off and well-heeled.

The majority own land or an interest in land, and are therefore better off than those who don't.

After a lifetime of work, millions of pensioners have relatively little to show for it.

Especially if they never managed to buy a ticket on the landowners' escalator, which their lifetimes of work on the treadmill powered.

12% of pensioner households are worth less than £500.

But none of the landowning ones.

[ingliz]

and thus might not be far better off with LVT?

It makes no difference the poor pensioner will be worse off renting or owning when you refuse to pay top-up benefits.

Pension Credit is an income-related benefit made up of 2 parts - Guarantee Credit and Savings Credit.

Guarantee Credit tops up your weekly income if it’s below £151.20 (for single people) or £230.85 (for couples).

Savings Credit is an extra payment for people who saved some money towards their retirement, eg a pension.

In each case an honest appreciation of the facts reveals the former to be deserving, the latter, not so much.

An honest appreciation of the facts reveals a situation where an unemployed person with a family to support loses a range of benefits payments if they find employment. If the level of income they lose from the state isn't matched or exceeded by the income they can get from paid work, this individual (and their family) will, effectively, be worse off if they take paid employment.

not so much

Homo economicus, a rational actor, would stay on benefits and feed his family; you might not.

and want to enshrine permanently.

retired millionaire landowners

<yawn>

[Truth To Power]

and thus might not be far better off with LVT?

It makes no difference the poor pensioner will be worse off renting or owning when you refuse to pay top-up benefits.

No, that's just more garbage from you. "Top-up" benefits are just a gift to private landlords, and I've already told you LVT is a revenue system, not a spending system, so your claims about what I "refuse to pay" are just some more $#!+ you made up.

When landowners don't get to keep land rent, the UIE substitutes for some or all of the tenant's rent (or owner's LVT), meaning that tenant pensioners will certainly be far better off because the UIE reduction is a wash, but they will no longer be paying other (including shifted) taxes. Wealthy landowning pensioners may or may not be better off with LVT, depending on a number of factors, but most would quite rightly be worse off: you can't have justice without discomfiting those who are counting on injustice, especially its biggest beneficiaries. It's logically impossible.

Pension Credit is an income-related benefit made up of 2 parts - Guarantee Credit and Savings Credit.

Guarantee Credit tops up your weekly income if it’s below £151.20 (for single people) or £230.85 (for couples).

Savings Credit is an extra payment for people who saved some money towards their retirement, eg a pension.

So it takes money from poor working people who can't afford to buy a home (whom you intend to keep poor and oppressed) and gives it to rich, retired landowners with low incomes (whose narrow financial interests you place above justice). Check.

In each case an honest appreciation of the facts reveals the former to be deserving, the latter, not so much.

An honest appreciation of the facts reveals a situation where an unemployed person with a family to support loses a range of benefits payments if they find employment. If the level of income they lose from the state isn't matched or exceeded by the income they can get from paid work, this individual (and their family) will, effectively, be worse off if they take paid employment.

Which is one reason such benefits are incomparably inferior to the UIE.

not so much

Homo economicus, a rational actor, would stay on benefits and feed his family; you might not.

I agree the income-based benefits system you favor (and rail against cuts to) has perverse incentives that discourage productive effort and encourage dependence.

and want to enshrine permanently.

Your constant railing against self-evident justice makes that indisputable.

[ingliz]

your claims about what I "refuse to pay" are just some more $#!+ you made up.

No

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

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

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

tenant pensioners will certainly be far better off

How?

in the year 2010/2011 taxes less transfers as a proportion of original income were minus 211 percent for the lowest quintile

So it takes money from poor working people

No

It is only when you get into the top 40 percent that people begin to be net contributors

Which is one reason such benefits are incomparably inferior to the UIE.

If you need a roof over your head, and rents are going up under your scheme, why is a UIE of £16 p.w. "incomparably" better than £97 p.w. HB?

we would expect them [landlords] to charge more.

perverse incentives

It is perverse of you to put forward an economically senseless argument and expect rational people to take a blind bit of notice of your moralizing.

Your constant railing against self-evident justice makes that indisputable.

[Truth To Power]

your claims about what I "refuse to pay" are just some more $#!+ you made up.

No

Yes:

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

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

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

See?

tenant pensioners will certainly be far better off

How?

By no longer having to pay their landlords for doing nothing.

in the year 2010/2011 taxes less transfers as a proportion of original income were minus 211 percent for the lowest quintile

Google doesn't recognize that "quote," which has already been refuted anyway. The Centre isn't counting indirect tax incidence, nor does it count land rent -- which devours most of the transfers -- as a payment for government.

Furthermore, it is a bit disingenuous for a Marxist to be citing the right-wing conservative CPS, when Marxists generally claim -- with reason -- that it is full of $#!+.

So it takes money from poor working people

No

Yes:

It is only when you get into the top 40 percent that people begin to be net contributors

Already refuted. Even ignoring the CPS's bogus analysis, there are plenty of poor people in the top 40% in income, because income is not a useful measure of wealth.

Which is one reason such benefits are incomparably inferior to the UIE.

If you need a roof over your head, and rents are going up under your scheme, why is a UIE of £16 p.w. "incomparably" better than £97 p.w. HB?

At least three reasons:

1. It is unconditional, and therefore does not have the perverse economic and social effects of means-tested benefits.
2. It doesn't just get shoveled into landowners' pockets in return for nothing.
3. It stimulates more productive use of land, reducing land rents.

we would expect them [landlords] to charge more.

<yawn> Already addressed. I realize that your choice would be to keep everyone poor in order to prevent land rents from rising.

perverse incentives

It is perverse of you to put forward an economically senseless argument and expect rational people to take a blind bit of notice .

"Economically senseless"?

Maybe that's why dozens of eminent Western economists, including four (count 'em, FOUR) Nobel laureates, signed an open letter advocating recovery of publicly created land rent for public purposes and benefit, as I do:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_lett ... chev_(1990)

of your moralizing

When you are fighting the greatest evil that has ever existed, it's hard to avoid the moral dimension of the fight.

Your constant railing against self-evident justice makes that indisputable.

Is it justice to steal working people's wages to give wealth to landowners in return for nothing, as you demand, or self-evidently injustice?

Is it justice to deprive people of their liberty to use what nature provided for all without just compensation, as you demand, or self-evidently injustice?

Is it justice to compel producers and consumers to pay for government twice, so that landowners may pocket one of the payments in return for nothing, as you demand, or self-evidently injustice?

Is it justice that enables landowners to be lifted without effort up an escalator that is powered by a treadmill to which working people are consigned, as you demand, or self-evidently injustice?