Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosYou claimed that land taxes in the US were efficient.
I stated the fact that PROPERTY taxes in the USA are more efficient
than other commonly levied taxes such as income and sales taxes.
Which, for all their faults, they are, because they fall mainly on
land.
Roy still refuses to speak the language of economics or even understand
English. To say something is more efficient states that something is not
only embodies efficiency but has more of the quality of efficiency. Roy
refuses to understand that economic efficiency is not like the term used
in engineering. In engineering 20% efficient deals with how much energy
is created. So 30% efficient is more efficient. In economics there is no
such thing. In the language of economics more efficient is nonsensical.
In the language of economics something is efficient or it is not
efficient. Roy still does not understand this point or even what
efficiency means to an economist. Lets see if he understands it after I
explain it for the 100th time squared.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosLand taxes in the US tax improved and unimproved value. I am
also pointing out that just because in the short run an unimproved value
tax does not effect improvements, it may in the long run.
Of course. It leads to more improvement, as seen in every single
historical example.
As compared to what? The correct answer is as compared to a tax on land
improvements. It will not lead to more improvements than no taxes at
all. Even if you look at the short run only.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosSecondly that
the only way that the tax can be seen as efficient in the land market,
not the market for improvements, is if the elasticity of supply is
exactly zero.
Which it is.
2 markets. Market A is the market for land. This shows how much land is
bought and sold. The cost increases the purchase price of the land. This
means consumers will want to buy less land. Less land will be traded on
the market after the tax unless the quantity supplied of land is not
affected by price, the elasticity of supply is 0. If the elasticity of
supply is not zero then the quantity of land bought and sold will
decrease. Some land that would have been allocated to buyers who place a
higher value on the land than the owners reservation price will not be
sold because the tax will make the cost of aquiring the land (the
purchase price + taxes incurred as a consequence of owning the land)
greater than the buyers value on the land. So trades are lost and land
that would have gone to people with higher values does stays in the
hands of people who place a lower value on the land as compared to the
person who would have bought the land without the tax. This is inefficient.
Is the loss in total surplus from such a tax less than other taxes?
Maybe. It depends if land has rather inelastic supply and labor has
rather inelastic supply it is hard to say. Why? Because the elasticities
of supply and demand determine the size of the lost gains of trade. My
hunch is that elasticities in the land are smaller than in the labor
market but I have no empirical evidence to back that up so I can not say
if it is true or not.
Market B is a market for improvements on the land. This occurs due to
current landowners decisions. There is a demand for improvements and a
supply of improvements. If only the unimproved land value is taxed then
there is no short run tax on improvements and the market is not impeded
in anyway.
That being said one must realize that improvements are similar to
capital accumulation. They occur from retained profits. If unimproved
land taxes lower profits then firms have less to spend on capital
improvements and in the long run a tax on unimproved land does affect
improvements. There is a short of crowding out that occurs when tax
revenue replaces investment. The effect is not entirely clear though
because less investment demand should decrease interest rates offsetting
the effect at least some.
We also must realize that an unimproved land tax increases the fixed
cost of doing business. In the long run that drives some firms out of
business that were profitable before and distorts investment decisions.
So if you office building is making profits that are exactly equal to
the opportunity cost of running an internet business from your home
before the tax then it can distort the decision if the increase in fixed
cost make using the office building drives you out of the rental market
and into running an internet business. If no one can make an economic
profit from using the offices given the market after taxation then it
would cause the office building to be razed and something else built.
That would not have occurred without the tax so it shows the tax
distorts decisions.
What you have missed in my argument is I am refering to two seperate and
distinct markets. In one market the tax on unimproved land causes lost
gains from trade(another term for dead weight loss). In the other market
the tax has no short run effect. Once you understand what I have clearly
said about the tax effects on two markets the argument because easier to
see.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosPost by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosPost by r***@telus.netThe property tax in Texas is quite a bit more
efficient
No such thing as more efficient.
Thank you for again proving that you are infinitely stupid, ignorant
and dishonest.
Quite the contrary. If you had studied economics you would understand
efficiency is defined as total surplus in the market being maximized.
And if, as is invariably the case in reality, it is not....?
What is the case that markets are efficient or that in reality the
definition of efficiency is total surplus being maximized. The first has
no bearing on the statement that there is no such time as more efficient
only efficient and inefficient. It is a question of how often efficiency
exist. The second does have bearing and can be easily seen that in
reality textbooks and economist alike use the definition of efficiency
being the maximization of total surplus. Therefore something can not be
more efficient. It is either maximized or it is not.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosYou would understand this definition does not allow for degrees of
efficency.
Of course it does,
LoL! Really show one calculus problem where something is more maximized
than another. So if total surplus is maximized in two cases which is
more efficient. It is a nonsensical question because total surplus is
maximized in both cases. One can not say something is more maximized
than another. The only thing you may be able to say is that if both
markets are inefficient one has a smaller dead weight loss than the
other. This is not always true the dead weight loss can be equal.
Please do explain to me how when the definition of efficiency is that
all resources are put to their best use or that total surplus is
maximized one situation can be more efficient than the other. I really
want to hear this. Either all resources are used and put to their best
use or they are not. Efficiency is a statement of is or is not not 10%
efficient versus 20% efficient.
Post by r***@telus.netlying garbage, just as the
definition of "white" as an absolute allows for degrees of whiteness,
Efficiency is not a color. It can not be measured on a scale like white
can. All RGB monitors use a numerical scale of colors to produce a color
less white contains more of Red, Green, or Blue. Efficiency is not a
number and can be expressed as a number or set of numbers. White can be
measured as a set of numbers. That is how computers make different
colors and HTML code codes this these numbers to produce color.
Post by r***@telus.netthe definition of "complete" as an absolute allows for degrees of
completeness,
Maximization does not. Something is either maximized or it is not. Show
one page in a calculus book that refers to a function as 10% maximized.
It does not exist. You met FOCs or you do not. I can say a computer is
10% complete if I have 10% of the parts for it. In this case
completeness is easily measured on numerical system based on the number
parts needed. Maximization in calculus is not. The Social welfare
function can not be 10% maximized. Calculus does not allow for it.
Either you meet first order conditions or you do not. If you meet the
conditions it is maximized. If you do not it is not maximized.
Post by r***@telus.netthe definition of "vacuum" as an absolute allows for
degrees of vacuity (though none that can do justice to your
"arguments," of course), etc.
Why because vacuity is not a concept of maximization. It is a numerical
scale. You can not place a maximization problem on a numerical scale and
one maximized problem has a higher value than another. Efficiency is not
a numeric concept where reaching 5 or 10 is efficient. Efficiency is a
concept that saves the social welfare function that is Value to buyer -
price paid + price recieved - cost + tax revenue is maximized. You can
not say it is more or less maximized. Maximization is an absolute with
no degrees in it.
Question. I have 2 profit functions.
1. Profit = (10-Q)(Q) - Q. If I maximize this then 10 - 2Q - 1 = 0 is
the first order condition. Q = 4.5 maximizes profit. So profit is
maximized when Q= 4.5 and P (P=10-Q) = 5.5. Profit = 20.25
2. Profit = (11 - Q) Q - 2Q FOC 11 - 2Q -2 = 0
At maximization Q = 4.5 P = 6.5. Profit = 20.25
Is equation 2 more maximized than equation 1? Had profit been higher in
equation one would equation one been more maximized than equation 2?
Obviously this is a nonsensical question. Just as when total surplus is
maximized in both cases which is more efficient.
Post by r***@telus.netIf there were no degrees of economic
efficiency, the concept would be quite useless, as it would have no
empirical meaning.
Absolutely not. It is a baseline for comparison only by knowing the
efficient solution can one determine if the current solution is
efficient or not. If inefficient Only by knowing the efficent quantity
and the efficient price can one determine how much damage or benefit the
externality gives, how big are the lost gains from trade due to trade
barriers, or how big of an economic loss a tax brings. Efficiency is
the starting point to compare the outcome to. With no idea of what
quantities and prices would be without taxes you can not make a
statement of how much damage a tax does.
Post by r***@telus.netIf 5% unemployment were not more efficient than
25% unemployment, there would be no economic reason to prefer the
former to the latter.
On the contrary. 5% and 25% unemployed are both inefficient. It is the
lost gains from trade that are different. 25% unemployment results in
more products being not made as compared to 0% unemployment (or 6% if
you believe that is the natural rate) than 5% unemployment. The
deadweight loss to 25% unemployment is larger but 5% employment is not
more efficient. It is inefficient and so 25% unemployment it gives a
smaller excess burden (another term for dead weight loss or lost gains
from trade).
Here is the point in that in designing a tax the tax that gives the
smallest excess burden and the least administrative cost is preferred.
Say a 10% income tax gives a dead weight loss of 5 and a 10% sales tax
gives a dead weight loss of 4%. The sales tax has a smaller excess
burden. However it cost twice as much to administer a sales tax and
sales = income, there is no savings (I realize this is unrealistic) then
a sales tax would have to be at a higher rate to get the same revenue.
So if the cost of collection is $1 under income taxes and $2 under sales
taxes then which is prefered? Lets say income and sales are $30. 10%
grosses $3. An income tax nets $2 and a sales tax nets $1. If the
government wants to raise $2 in revenue a 10% income tax works but they
need a 13% sales tax. A 13% sales tax might have a dead weight loss of 6
which is greater than the dead weight loss of 5 from a 10% income tax.
This simple concept shows why income tax cuts lower benefits. The higher
the income tax the more attractive a benefit is. A worker can $10 worth
of benefit for $10 if it is insurance. To give them $10 to buy insurance
would require increasing pay by about $15 to give the worker $10 take
home pay at 35%. As the tax rate lowers there is less incentive for
benefits. If a worker pays no income tax than giving him $10 in pay
equals $10 in benefits, if it does not change the person's tax bracket.
So there is no incentive to give benefits instead of pay. Anyway I
disgress.
Post by r***@telus.netEverything you say is solely for the purpose of deceit, and your every
post here only solidifies the proof that I am 100% correct: economists
are largely paid liars for the privileged.
Collecting my paychecks from the tri-lateral commission, council for
foreign affairs, templars, mason, and illumanti as we speak. <tongue in
cheek> Sorry Roy but this is my free time. I am not paid by anyone to
post here nor would anything I have posted risk my job even if I wasn't
annoymous.
Just because you do not understand the language of economics does not
make us liars. You are still the person reading a romance novel and
thinking that love really means foot then saying what a crock how could
a woman get her long lost foot back.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosPick up a microeconomic textbook and read. Just because
economist do not use the home made definitions that you and "The
Trucker" use does not mean we are lying.
<yawn> Either show me the peer-reviewed journal article where it says
that 5% unemployment and 25% unemployment are equally inefficient, or
admit that you are stupid, ignorant, lying garbage.
I can't because no one would ever use those terms. By definition there
is no such thing as equally inefficient just as there is no such thing
is efficient. The concept of equally inefficient is just as nonsensical
as the concept of equally efficient. The fact that no one can find a
journal article that ever makes a statement that something is more
efficient than something else or something is more inefficient supports
my point.
Since your criteria will not work by definition and you are trying to
bait me into something that doesn't exist, which you would know if you
understood the definition, then I have a challenge for you. Show me one
AER paper that contains the phrase more efficient in it. Just one. It
doesn't even have to be AER. Any AEA publication, NBER, publication or
any first or second teir publication that says anywhere in the text more
efficient. I am giving you a much broader area to search in. If you are
right this should be easy to find. If I am right it will be impossible
to find and I am right.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosThe cold hard truth is efficiency characterizes a situation to where all
resources are put to their best use.
The cold, hard truth is that such a situation can never exist in
reality,
Although I disagree. No one said anything about it actually existing. It
is a base line for comparison. It is something a model can solve for and
yield estimable parameters. The base line need not exist to use it as a
comparison for what is desirable. A truly honest person may not exist.
Does that mean we can not use it as a baseline to compare if someone is
truly honest or not? We not find a perfect person but does it not mean
we can not have a criteria for perfection used to judge if someone is
perfect. Can we not use that measure to show the damage from
imperfection that occurs that would not occur if the person were
perfect? Can we not predict what a perfect person would do and say this
is not the action the person took and this is the amount of damage that
occurred from acting imperfectly. NB: I am not equating efficiency and
perfection by any means here.
Efficient markets may be rare and due to the necessity of taxation may
not even exist in the US or any country. Sales taxes cause
inefficiencies. Income taxes are a sales tax on all goods you would buy.
Land tax distort the land market. Yet, how we can we call these outcomes
inefficient and undesirable if we do not know what is efficient and what
is desirable. That is what efficiency does it says this is efficient and
from the economic viewpoint desirable. Then we can compare an outcome
and say this is efficient or this is not efficient.
Post by r***@telus.netZero tolerance is unscientific nonsense -- which might be why you are
trying so hard to eliminate any possibility of empirical scientific
observation of degrees of economic efficiency.
No I am not trying to eliminate anything. What you call degrees of
economic efficiency is term the size of dead weight loss to economist.
That is what I have been trying to drill in your thick head. I have no
problem discussing the size of deadweight loss or even seeking empirical
measures. My own reasearch initially focused on how far a particular
market outcome was from optimal. In economist terms, the size of dead
weight and gave policy implication for how to correct that dead weight
loss. I have no problem with anyone studying how far from optimal an
outcome is. I have no problem with a statement that this outcome IS
CLOSER TO EFFICIENCY than another, which is what you mean in your
statement. However to speak in degrees of efficiency when you are
arguing the size of the dead weight loss (how far the outcome is from
the efficient outcome) shows a complete misunderstanding of efficiency is.
Show if you want to have this decision try to understand and respect
what the terms mean. When you say more efficient what you mean in terms
an economist can understand and that make sense by economic definitions
is a smaller dead weight loss. When you say 25% unemployment is more
inefficient than 5% unemployment that is nonsensical in the language of
economics. The proper terminology is that either
A. 25% unemployment results in fewer lost gains from trade;
B. 25% unemployment results in a smaller dead weight loss;
or C. 25% unemployment results in less excess burden.
If you do the same search I challenged you to do using these terms you
will find this sort of statements in peer reviewed articles. You will
never find someone in a peer reviewed article say some is more efficient.
I know it seems like nitpicking over semantics but loose language like
this is exactly why people find economics confusing. Because people
misuse terms all the time. Bush was talking about gas prices in a speech
and said they are high because supply exceeds demand. That is
nonsensical to an economist. Does that mean the supply curve seems to be
higher on the graph than the demand curve. Does that mean quantity
supplied exceeds quantity demanded? This is why people find economics
confusing because people outside of the profession use terms wrongly
everyday so they are completely befuddled when they hear an economist
use the term correctly. Like the example before it is like a Frenchman
thinking love translate to pied (foot in french) and being completely
befuddled by a story about a woman trying to get her long lost foot back.
Tight proper use of economic language avoids confusion. Sloppy use of
language and use of connotations confuses people especially when someone
like I start using the terms correctly.
Roy in the end I know what you mean by more efficient but the term you
use is not correct. The proper and clear way to say it in the language
of economics is that a land tax yields a smaller dead weight loss. More
efficient confuses people when they see an exposition of efficency and
suddenly realize that this is an efficient and lots of inefficient
points not points that somewhat efficient and puts that are less
somewhat efficient. I am actually picking this battle to educate and
illuminate terminology so economics is not so confusing. It is not
economist who make economics confusing it is people who are not
economist who try to use economic terms and use them incorrectly that
makes economics confusing. The hardest part of economics is learning the
language and understanding what the terms mean.
BTW, you are far from the only person who has this confusion over the
term efficiency. Too many teachers and professors don't spend enough
time talking to students and non economist and take for granted the
terms are understood. This causes them sometimes to not explain them at
all or gloss over them. As you might notice, I am a stickler for
terminology because I believe firmly that is the muddling of terminology
by people who are non economist and even worse economist who try to
speak in the muddy connotations of terms that causes confusion by
non-practitioners.
Post by r***@telus.netYou likewise can't have
something more complete than 100% complete.
Maximization is not completion. It has no numerical scale to be
evaluated on. There is no concept of somewhat maximized like there is
somewhat complete. If you don't solve for FOCs and tell your calculus
professor the problem is 50% maximized you missed the entire problem.
Post by r***@telus.netBut that doesn't mean
something that is 99% complete isn't more complete than something that
is only 90% complete.
Again you can define a set of numbers that defines how complete
something is. You can not create a set of numbers that defines how
maximized something is. Completely different concepts.
Post by r***@telus.netLike "complete," "economically efficient" is an
absolute.
Complete is not an absolute if you create a set of numbers that defines
the amount of completion. It is no longer complete or incomplete it can
now be 50% complete. There is no way to assign a set of numbers to
measure how maximized something is.
Post by r***@telus.netBut like "complete," there are also degrees of economic
efficiency, which economists understand and talk about routinely.
Not if you understand the terms correctly. Again I challenge you to find
one refereed journal article that uses the term more efficient. I know
you can find all sorts of hacks with journalism degrees use the term but
few economist who will ever use that phrase if any. If they do they are
talking to non-economist and thank that incorrect phrase will be better
understood. I abhor it when people do that because propagating incorrect
terminology makes economist look like we are locked away in ivory towers
and the common man can not understand economics. It propagates views
like yours that economics is meant to intentionally confuse. It is a
well observed correlation that students who miss lectures that explain
key definitions are much likely to say economics is confusing than those
who attend the lectures where key terms are explained. 9 times out of 10
a student who says they are totally confused by the class did not
understand a key term. When the key term is explained every suddenly
starts to click.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosNo. It depends on if you are using the correct and accepted definition
of efficiency.
No, it depends on if you are trying to enhance understanding, or to
prevent it.
It is the unwillingness to accept key terms and understand them that
causes confusion. It is muddled language and improper terminology that
muddles economics. This is done by non economist who want to speak about
economics but do not understand the terms. See the thread with the
Trucker where he claimed price theory did not work because price caused
in an increase in demand when Marshall said that an increase in price
would cause a decrease in demand. It was a clear misunderstanding, which
I think he understands now, of what is meant by quantity demanded and
demand. The law of demand says that an increase in price can not
increase quantity demanded.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosYou and "the trucker" want to argue economics but do not
want to the speak the language of economics.
Indeed. The language of economics is very much a part of the problem.
It has been constructed expressly for the purpose of obfuscation and
deceit, as documented by Prof. Mason Gaffney in "The Corruption of
Economics." And even that work does not take the full measure of the
deceit.
No it has not. It just has some key definitions that people use in
common language that have connotations that are very different from what
the term means. This is no different from psychics in that people
confuse what physic measures are all the time. In any science you have
to understand the terminology which is either not used in common
language or means something different in common language, eg. force.
Damn, I just realized my frigging spell check has been turning some
misspelling of physics I used into psychics for some damn reason. I
should watch my own spelling instead of relying on this stupid thing.
See how confusing the wrong terminology can be. People must have thought
me to be a kook to be talking about psychics as science! :) Sorry about
that. Physics can be confusing as well if people do not understand the
proper terminology. Was Newton intentionally try to confuse people so
that he could the secrets of a physics to a few elite? I highly doubt it.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosYou want to make up your
own terms, not define them,
Lie.
Yet you are. You are defining the elasticity of supply as being
determined by quantity available and not the quantity supplied. You are
defining efficiency as something that can be measured in degrees. These
are not accepted terms. Yet you preach them as gospel.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosIf you think efficiency means something else then define it when
argue that something is efficient.
<yawn> Because you are stupid, ignorant, lying garbage, you claim
that because "vacuum" is an absolute -- one cannot have less matter
than none -- physicists cannot talk about degrees of vacuum.
I never said that you did. I said a vacuum can be place on a scale of
numbers. An equation can not be defined as a set of numbers that
represent how maximized it is. Efficiency is the maximization of total
surplus.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosSo what is your definition of efficient? I am really curious to know
since you have implied you have a vast knowledge of what is in economic
textbooks.
"Efficient" is not an unreasonable term for maximum surplus.
Thank you. So how do you get degrees of maximum surplus. Surplus is
either maximized or it is not.
Post by r***@telus.netYou are
just lying when you claim that one cannot describe less than maximum
surplus as being less efficient than that.
No I am saying it is not accepted economic terminology. Accepted
terminology says less surplus than maximum is inefficient not less
efficient. To say something is less efficient says it is efficient but
has less efficiency than something else. A situation where total surplus
is not maximized is not efficient so it can not be less efficient. Again
I challenge to find the phrase more efficient in an article in a peer
reviewed journal. I would even challenge you to find that phrase in any
textbook.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosSomething tells if I didn't
understand efficiency correctly I would have failed a test in principles
of macro, undergraduate public finance, field courses that apply the
concept of efficency, Graduate level Micro I and Micro II, Graduate
level Macro II were efficiency was used in contexts of externalities,
industrial organization, or even development field courses. Some how I
passed all of those classes and never failed a test.
Congratulations. You proved you can regurgitate the required lies.
Here we go Eicke. If it doesn't fit you definition or it counters your
point then the other person is working for the global elite to cover up
your criticism. There is a word for people like you. It is called paranoid.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosPost by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosIf you mean there is a smaller dead weight
loss you might be right but that is an empirical question. The only way
to show that is with data.
No, stupid, it isn't. It is already known that a tax that falls
mainly on land must be more efficient than one that falls entirely on
production and consumption, like a sales tax.
A. There is no such thing as more efficient. Less deadweight loss perhaps.
?? So, an efficient result is not more efficient than an inefficient
one?
No it is not. An efficient result is efficient. An inefficient result is
not. Proper understanding of the English language, Queen's English or
American, will show that to say something is less efficient means it has
the quality of being efficient just in a lesser degree. Inefficient does
not have the quality of being efficient so it can not be less efficient.
To say I am less jovial than someone else implies I am jovial just to a
smaller degree. You would not say that of someone who never possess the
characteristic of being jovial. It would be incorrect but it says the
posses a some degree of being jovial. Saying less efficient implies
something is efficient just to a lesser degree. So even an understanding
of the English language shows why you are wrong.
However, the rules of the English would say more inefficient would be
somewhat correct because it says the outcome has the quality of being
inefficient. It fails by implying it is inefficient to a greater degree.
Although still not correct more inefficient mean more dead weight loss
is more acceptable. It is much less likely to cause confusion.
Post by r***@telus.netStupid, ignorant, lying garbage.
Post by professorchaosB. No categorial statement can be made such as this because there is no
criteria for what size the tax is.
Equivalent revenue, obviously. Stupid, ignorant, lying garbage.
Equivalent revenue would mean different size taxes if administration
cost are different. This would mean that you might need a 15% land tax
to have the same revenue as a 10% income tax if income taxes cost less
to administer. Even if an income tax gives a higher dead weight for the
same % taxed it could give a smaller dead weight because the % of income
taxed is less than the percentage of land taxed.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosDoes a 100% tax on the unimproved
value of land yield a smaller dead weight loss than a 1% tax on income?
Yep, even though it would yield at least an order of magnitude more
revenue.
Hey Rocky watch me pull a rabbit out of my ass. You are really insane if
you believe you make this sort of statement with no data what so ever.
You can't even say a 100% land tax yeilds more revenue than a 1% income
tax. What if taxable land is $100 and taxable income is $1 million does
the land tax still give more revenue at 100% than a 1% income tax. No
the land tax yeilds $100 in revenue the income tax yields $1000 in revenue.
Which has less excess burden. I honestly have no clue without looking at
the data or at least an idea of what the elasticities of supply and
demand are in the labor market and the land market. Both would likely
have rather inelastic, although not perfectly, inelastic supply curves
meaning both would have the nonspecific statement of a small dead weight
loss.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosDoes it yield a smaller dead weight loss than a 5% sales tax.
Yep, even though it would yield at least an order of magnitude more
revenue.
As I point out before without measures of elasticities and what the tax
base is you are taxing you can not categorically make such a statement.
Again we have land valued at $1000 in our locality. Business sales after
the tax are $5 million. The 100% land tax gives $1000. The 5% sales tax
gives $5000 in revenue. Which has a smaller dead weight loss? No one can
tell you without estimating a model. No one can even guess without
knowing the elasticities in the land market and for the goods taxed.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosThat is
why it is an empirical question that takes more than talking it out.
It is not an empirical question, it is an empirical fact.
Give me one citation. Just One. If it is an empirical fact show me one
study that found this conclusion.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosC. THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING THAT LAND TAXES HAVE A DEADWEIGHT LOSS AND
THEREFORE ARE NOT EFFICIENT.
Land taxes can be badly designed, like any other tax. However, a land
tax that is proportional to rent has no deadweight loss.
You just do not understand what makes something inefficient do you. I
have to go to bed. Keep having nightmares about the man coming to get
you in your fantasy world where you hold all the definitions and the
truth and the man is trying to suppress you by not accepting your home
made definitions. I have already wasted way too much time on this. I
feel confident if anyone else is reading they will see you are a kook
who will not accept proper terminology. You are too far gone into a mode
of egotistical righteous to be convinced of anything that does not fit
your narrow paranoid and wrong preconceptions.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosI recall my initial statement paraphrased for those who do not
understand what efficiency means. A tax on the unimproved value of land
carries a dead weight loss.
Flat false.
In Roy's world. Prove it. Just one citation. Not the tired old quotation
from Friedman that says "property taxes are the least bad." That states
they have dead weight loss just not as much as other taxes. Which is not
something I accept or deny. I need to see some real studies not some
kook who believes economist are agents of the global elite and they are
out to get him saying so.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosYou see Roy I never argued anything that much different from you.
Liar. I have tried to illuminate. You have tried only to obfuscate
and prevaricate.
The only obfuscation comes from you incorrectly using terms and refusing
to have a discussion using the proper language of economics. By changing
definitions from those accepted you are obfucating and being
intentionally confusing or intentional ignorant once. I have tried to
explain to you what these terms mean in economics and you refuse to
listen. You just want to call me a liar and claim I am getting paid by
the global elitist who have trained economist they use like attack dogs
to protect their interest. Those of who are not paranoid schizophrenics
know differently.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosI simply pointed out you were using the term efficiency wrong. There are
no degrees of efficiency. Either a market outcome maximizes total
surplus or it does not. There can be a smaller dead weight in tax A vs.
tax B. That does not make tax A more efficient because the fact that a
dead weight loss exist means tax A is not efficient.
Your original claim was that land taxes on unimproved and improved value
were efficient.
Lie. I stated the fact that they are more efficient than the commonly
employed alternatives.
By saying more efficient you are not only saying they are posses the
quality of efficiency but even more so than other taxes. Something that
is not efficient does not posses the quality of being efficient. THERE
IS NO SUCH THING AS MORE EFFICIENT. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MORE
EFFICIENT. THE PROPER TERM IS THAT THE TAX CARRIES LESS DEAD WEIGHT
LOSS! THE PROPER TERM IS THAT THE TAX CARRIES LESS DEAD WEIGHT LOSS.
Look it up schmuck .
Post by r***@telus.netWrong. The only really meaningful debates in economics are over
definitions, which is why mainstream neoclassical economics is not an
empirical science.
You are clueless.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosThey
want to make claims using terms incorrectly then someone who understands
what the term means points out they are using the term wrong and the
wrong use of the term shows a misunderstanding of the concept.
Claiming there are no degrees of economic efficiency shows a
misunderstanding of the concept.
In Roy land maybe. In Roy Land high priest Roy gets to make up what ever
terms he wants. Do you think imaginary numbers are numbers that exist
only in your head?
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosPost by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosPost by r***@telus.netand progressive than income tax (which IIRC TX does not
have, but other states and of course the federal government do).
If your argument were right that the poor own no land, which is not true
some poor people own houses and it takes a bigger percentage of their
income to pay the note and the tax,
There are no poor people who own houses, at least not in the USA, and
if there were, the houses they own would be old and depreciated, so
the property tax would mainly just reduce the cost of acquiring the
land.
Proof? Want to cite some evidence?
No evidence is needed to establish what is true by definition.
Delusions of grandeur. Roy defines it this way therefore it is true and
proven by Roy's definition. All hail the omnipotent Roy. Theocracy went
out a long time ago Roy.
Post by r***@telus.netPost by professorchaosHow about a study on homeownership that supports your conclusion?
Here I can cite wrong that shows that you are wrong.
No, of course you can't.
Post by professorchaoshttp://www.hungerinamerica.org/snapshot_comparisons/income_variables/home_ownership.html
Look at the table 2.0% percent of their clients with 0 income own a
place to live. 19% of clients in the 76%-100% of the poverty line range
own a home. Are you ready to admit you are pulling rabbits out of your
hat yet?
No, because I am completely correct. "Poor" and "rich" are not
defined by income but by assets.
Really then the poverty line measures what? Man I am glad I put my hip
waders on here. High Priest Roy is really cranking out his dictates for
definitions now.
Post by r***@telus.netBecause you are mainly interested in
lying, you claim that a billionaire who has no income is poorer than a
minimum-wage worker who has no assets.
A billionaire with no income that would be a trick. He would have to be
incredibly stupid and keeping all his money in cash under his bed. Do
you think billionaires with no income are clients of an organization in
which there website is name hungerinamerica.org?
Some background on the study.
http://www.hungerinamerica.org/about_the_study/
"The study provides authoritative, comprehensive, and statistically
valid data on the national charitable response to hunger and the people
served by private hunger-relief agencies. Through 52,000 face-to-face
client interviews and 30,000 surveys of local charitable agencies,
Hunger in America 2006 chronicles the nature and incidence of demand for
emergency food assistance which, in turn, helps charitable feeding
organizations better address the burgeoning need through program
development and refinement. "
How many billionaires with no income are clients of local charities that
feed people with no or little money?
I offer empirical evidence you are wrong. You offer bullshit that
doesn't address the study. POOR PEOPLE OWN HOMES TOO. The tax is
regressive. Even if you were right and poor people don't own homes. The
middle class still spend a higher percentage of income on home ownership
than the rich therefore a they pay higher tax rates as compared to their
income. It is still regressive even only middle class and rich own homes.
Post by r***@telus.netDefining poverty by income
rather than assets is one of the lies economists commonly tell.
The study was from local charities who provide food. The clients were
people who the charities were given food to. You can call economist
liars all you want. It doesn't change the fact you are wrong and poor
people own homes.