What are the pros of a flat tax over a proggessive tax?

You don't do economics. You just repeat again and again Georgist fallacies. Crikey, even the only paper that you've referenced attacked Georgists are being bleedin useless.

I post it when the Georgist single tax script comes out. No one, with a resemblance of economic sense, buys that nonsense. Blaug states the obvious. Its a shame that he had to do with such sympathy for Georgism though. He should have been more succinct: Georgists have become cultists who ignore economic theory and empirical evidence

 

You are lying again, as usual.

I identify the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications.

Lie.

Lie.

No, you are just lying. Again. I have never advocated a Georgist single tax, so that just proves -- yet again -- that you are a lying sack of $#!+.

However plausible you claim to find his claims, I have proved them false.

No, you are lying again. The Georgists predicted the sub-prime mortgage collapse. The neoclassical mainstream did not. The Georgists (including four -- count 'em, FOUR -- Nobel laureates in economics) warned that the privatization of land in the XSSR would lead to economic collapse and subsequent descent into klepto-fascism. The neoclassical mainstream not only did not predict that, but actually made it happen. You just have to ignore, deny and dismiss all such facts.

 

No content, as usual! The financial collapse was predicted by numerous schools of thought. Schools that also publish widely to understand multiple ecionomic phenomena. Something beyond the Gerogist cultists

 

Which likely accounts for a significant portion of that group considering the decline in home values. They insulated from destitution though so long as they stay in the home and continue to pay towards their mortgage. It's besides the point though, a huge chunk of the population are homeowners, you sneered at home ownership being near 50% in the UK, but were willing to accept that it's 10% higher here, that a segment of the population this large are thieves/parasites/rent seekers ... whatever you'd like to call them is ludicrous and devalues all of those terms.

Just a caveat for anyone interested at how those numbers were arrived at.

 

flat tax - 1/10th of one percent of the population will own everything, everyone else will be dirt poor

progressive tax - just look at United States from 1950-1980 and the tremendous growth of the middle class and infrastructure, from 1980 forward the harm starts unfortunately due to the horrific damage done by raygunz

 

This is just repetition of ignorance. We know that, in Britain, 50% of the poor are homeowners. We also know that, given the impact on labour mobility, the self-insurance mechanism is costly in terms of lost revenues in the form of economic rent to the employer. You have shown that you do not understand either the labour market or the housing market.

Absolute nonsense! Only an id'jut would compare the developed and developing world. In terms of the developed world, despite financial market liberalisation, we haven't seen convergence in housing markets. The markets continue to differ according to differences in poverty rates and the nature of welfare state provision.

Note that Germany has low poverty and the UK high poverty! Well done. Put your foot in it again

 

You have misread his statement, let’s take a look at what Reiver said:

“Utter drivel again. Approx. 50% of Britain's poor, for example, are home owners.” -- Reiver

Reiver wasn’t talking about overall homeowner rates, he was claiming that 50% of the poor are homeowners. That is what Roy was calling a lie, and rightly so. You need to brush up on reading comprehension.

 

My reading comprehension is intact. Unless I'm off on one he's referring to Roger Burrows work Poverty and Home Ownership in Contemporary Britain.

But I will concede that Roy's knee jerk reaction was probably warranted, all things considered.

 

A flat 98% tax on land value would be very good.

The more (land) you take the more you pay.

That is fair to me. Think about it: the US is a land mass, the US government rules and is bounded by that land mass. What better way to fund the government than to pay a tax for taking land and opportunities away from other citizens.

 

Well, the whole “homeowner” thing is just a diversion tactic of Reiver's anyway. The fact is that residential land is only a small percentage of total land, and by the time the homeowner buys the land most of the value of public infrastructure has already been pocketed by speculators.

Furthermore, the word “homeowner” is to broad to be useful in economics, as there is a huge difference between a home owned outright and one with a mortgage attached.

 

Of course. That's another way Reiver found to be dishonest: he claims homeownership is associated with poverty, but it's actually GOING INTO DEBT WAY OVER YOUR HEAD that is associated with poverty.

Which keeps them broke unless and until inflation rescues them from debt.

It's not ludicrous at all. It is fact. And it is exactly how they have been deceived, scammed and co-opted into supporting a system that is robbing them blind, as already explained.

 

This is just repetition of lie.

We know that's a lie.

No, we have established that that claim is false.

ROTFL!

Only a lying sack of $#!+ would pretend that his clear logical errors and blatant dishonesy had not been cruelly and conclusively exposed.

And legal traditions of land tenure, and tax systems, and a hundred other factors. Norway, for example, has very high homeownership, low poverty and high state welfare provision, proving you indisputably wrong.

LOL! "Independently of their wealth and poverty levels," remember? You even had to snip and ignore the proof that you were completely wrong! Well done! Open mouth, change feet. There's a good lad.

 

Yea, obviously particularly when you factor in land that's uninhabitable or undesirable for any of many reasons. The fact still remains that there's evidence that home ownership and poverty are linked in some part due to the lack of mobility it creates. Your story doesn't explain how, over the past 10 years in the US as well, poverty and home ownership have increased simultaneously and certainly isn't in keeping with the caricature you both try to paint of the greedy land owner.

It's like many other things we take out loans for, we rightly assume it'll appreciate (over a long enough term) and combining that with inflation it's one of the most sound investments you can ever make.

Yea, for the first time in a very long time home values fell, it's abnormal and over a long enough period of time even most of those folks will be made whole. I'm much more concerned with lenders not being prudent in lending and any attempts to incentive them not to.

Inflation and appreciation, which without a doubt will save them, unless we take a profoundly ahistoric turn for the worse.

 

An ignorant reply. See, example, this JRF publication. As usual, given you're incapable of making valid remark, the rest of your post is not quotable. We can conclude that you know nothing about home ownership

 

The part you are missing is that the land value tax helps solve these poverty problems.

The land value tax makes homes more affordable, more liquid, less interest to the banker, and it eliminates all the other taxes that homeowners must pay; as well as any tax burden that results from burden shifting. So the homeowner under a LVT is far less likely to be poor.

A home for personal use is not an investment as it does not increase production; it just depreciates slower than other things you might buy. Just so you know, appreciation of residential land is out of fashion, and won’t be returning for quite a while. Now the money is chasing agricultural land, hope you enjoy paying rent as much as I enjoy collecting it.

 

That is an extremely tenuous relationship that is dwarfed by the effect of mortgage debt in aggravating poverty, and the obvious fact that people who are retired have low incomes and also tend to be homeowners.

Yes, it does: the population is aging (baby boomers) and the boom and bust has meant millions of people took on stupid amounts of debt in order to buy homes, and are now paying the price.

The landowner qua landowner is greedy. But greed often comes a cropper, and many of those who have bought homes have done so in pure self-defense: the only way off the treadmill of paying for government twice (once in taxes and then again in land rent) is to become a landowner yourself. People who buy homes often do so in despair of ever getting off the treadmill any other way. But of course, the problem with rent seeking is that it is efficient: what you spend to put yourself in a position to collect rent (like mortgage debt interest) tends to eat up all the rent you ever collect. It's not so simple to escape the treadmill.

Land is the best investment of any large asset class for a very simple reason: it empowers you to pocket other people's taxes.

Banksters understand that they have to collect land rent. That's the looting model that informs all their elaborate schemes and scams.

You are probably right, but it's not so simple. Look what has happened to Japan. Even more than 20 years later, land has not rebounded to even half its peak value, and some people are still saddled with 100-year (!) mortgages. The Japanese economy has been crippled by it, and the same could happen to the USA and UK, though probably not as severely.

Landowner privilege is utter poison that will ultimately destroy any society that enshrines it in public policy. Look at California since Proposition 13 for the proof.

 

Again there is nothing in your post really worth quoting. There is zero attempt at critique and you only illustrate your ignorance of housing issues. We know that poverty and home ownership are inherently linked. That link is of course multifaceted. We start with the self-insurance analysis; easily integrated within the life-cycle analysis into income smoothing. We have to then include knock-on effects on welfare state provision. This has all been empirically tested, through Castles analysis into Kemeny's thesis. We also have to factor in the Oswald hypothesis. Empirical analysis demonstrates some support for its conclusion that home ownership increases equilibrium unemployment. The analysis that rejects the hypothesis typically has to refer to alternative consequences of labour immobility on labour outcome (i.e. the reservation wage analysis that describes how home ownership increases underpayment).

And of course I've presented empirical evidence that shows that 50% of British poor are indeed home owners. You've replied with emotional clap-trap as again you have no means to respond with anything consistent with economic sense

 

You are aware that it conclusively refutes you, and you have no answers.

Translation: I proved you wrong, you know it, and you have no answers.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

Your claim that "homeownership and poverty are inherently linked" is an example of absurdity intended to enable atrocity -- such as hundreds of thousands of people being kept homeless in a country where millions of homes stand empty.

The homeless are poor. People who own real estate are not poor.

It's not rocket science. You just always have to lie. Always.

IOW, it has to be concocted out of some sort of evil, deceitful filth like calling a billionaire with no income "poor."

In order to evade the self-evident fact that people who own real estate aren't poor.

Because it's necessary in order to evade the self-evident fact that people who own real estate aren't poor.

Yes, by the sort of "empirical testing" that allowed the US Federal Reserve to conclude, in 1993, that the aggregate value of all corporate-owned land in the USA was NEGATIVE.

To prevent any intrusion of fact, logic, or honesty.

Which enables evasion of the fact that homeowners pocket other people's taxes.

By giving the homeowner so much unearned wealth that he has no need to seek full payment for his labor.

No, you have not. All you have presented is empirical evidence that if you contort the definition of "poor" enough, you can call a billionaire with no income "poor" -- and there will be some people stupid, ignorant and dishonest enough to believe you.

Your economic "sense" gave us the GFC. Nice one.

 

We both know why you adopt the one liner routine. You use it to hide from one simple truth: your Georgism, starved of any economic content capable of explaining current phenomena, means you cannot critique. All you have is emotionalism and a pathetic 'you lie' repetition which itself is motivated by disguising the constant untruths that you are forced to use.

You won't be able to prove anything. You're not just innocent of modern economics, you think modern economics is some conspiracy to make your emotionalism look decrepit.

I have done much more than claim. I've referred to the empirical evidence directly. It is fact that half of the British poor are home owners. Burrows also shows that this finding is resistant to poverty methodology changes (i.e. its not reliant on a simple income-based relative poverty measure). You could check it yourself. BSA, BHPS, LFS data? Three of numerous datasets freely available used in poverty analysis. You don't like the poverty-homeownership fact because its inconsistent with your dreary rant. That the link is also demonstrated in international data makes that rant look even more pathetic.

Approximately 50% of British poor are home owners. Fact! Your attempt to ignore empirical reality isn't going to be fruitful. It will just advertise the silliness of the Georgist.

The rest of your post was, as usual, worthless and there is no point in responding to such schoolyard prattle

 

Well, I suppose that's one way you can evade the fact that I have demolished you.

The only rational response to transparent lies like, "owning a house makes people poorer than not owning a house" is to identify them as such.

I have already proved your claims are false, absurd and dishonest.

<yawn> No formal conspiracy is required for people of like interests to pursue those interests. See, "The Corruption of Economics," by Prof Mason Gaffney:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/coe/!index.htm

Yes, you've also dissimulated, sneered, lied, dismissed, prevaricated, lied, ignored, insulted, and lied.

Which does not say what you claim it says.

No, it is not.

No, he doesn't, because the non-income measures used are also not measures of poverty.

I have.

I have checked them, and the closer the "poverty" measure gets to measuring actual poverty (and none of them get close), the lower the fraction of "poor" that are homeowners.

The same fallacious link shows up in fallacious international comparisons reliant on fallacious restriction of the range and fallacious removal of the actual variables that govern homeownership rates, such as legal traditions regarding land tenure and ownership! What a surprise!

Lie.

Anyone who is not committed to lying about self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality knows that poor people don't own real estate. I mean, really, what next? "Fleming and Larkin (2003) showed empirically that most sitting members of the House of Lords are poor"? Give your head a shake.

At least I'm not disseminating transparent lies.

 

[FONT=&amp]You’ve peddled error and stamped your foot a lot. It’s a shame we can’t get any coherency out of you[/FONT].

[FONT=&amp][/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Get it right now. Home ownership has been shown to increase underpayment, creating an economic rent that you can’t account for (given how backward Georgism really is)[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]A pathetic attempt! It makes it clear that 50% of homeowners are poor.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Another ridiculous statement, originating obviously from an ignorance of poverty methodology. You’ll find that consensus poverty measures (also inherently linked to Joseph Rowntree) confirm the relevance of standard poverty analysis. That Burrows has shown that the 50% measure is immune from variation in poverty definition blatantly describes the stupidity of your position.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Openly fibbing again? Tut tut! Why don’t you tell me where you checked BSA, BHPS and LFS data? You’ve put your foot in it again and your squirm will amuse.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]An inane response. The positive relationship between poverty and home ownership is well known. There is of course some variation, reflecting cultural differences. However, the regression coefficient is highly significant and the magnitude of any error is relatively minor.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]We have empirical evidence effectively describing that your position is inconsistent with economic reality. I don’t expect you to do the decent thing: i.e. realise your position is cretinous and adapt accordingly. I expect you to continue stamping your foot and coming out with your unimaginative one liners.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]As we’ve seen, you’ve openly fibbed several times in your last post. I expect you to continue as you assuredly know that 50% of British poor are homeowners and that pathetic Georgist cultism is incapable of explaining it.[/FONT]

 

I have corrected your errors and exposed your lies, so you have no choice now but to fall back on your invariable tactic: sneering.

That's another fabrication on your part. No such causal relationship has been demonstrated, and you know it.

Speaking of pathetic, please quote where it where it makes it clear that 50% of homeowners are poor.

I'm waiting.

??? Consensus poverty measures are inherently linked to Joseph Rowntree???

BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!

Do you have any concept of how ABSURD, how completely detached from reality that statement makes you?

We are going to stop right here and focus on that hilarious claim. Please provide your evidence that consensus poverty measures are inherently linked to Joseph Rowntree -- i.e., that they could not exist without Joseph Rowntree.

No, that's just another flat-out lie from you, and therefore blatantly describes the dishonesty of your claims, your position, your "arguments," your antecedents, and your rationalizations of greed, parasitism and privilege. Burrows showed the opposite in Poverty and Homeownership in Contemporary Britain:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/jr136-poverty-homeownership-britain.pdf

Table 5 on p 25 proves that using the Bradshaw and Finch measure of poverty, only 32% of the poor are homeowners. On p 26, commenting on Table 6, Burrows states explicitly that you deliberately lied:

"We can also note that, as the definition of
poverty becomes more and more restricted, the
proportion of those in poverty who are home
owners – the focus of our concern here –
decreases."

You stand not only refuted but PROVEN to have LIED.

You knew you were making a false claim, and you CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY DECIDED TO LIE.

Again.

As usual.

ROTFL!! See above. You lied. I just proved you lied. You have been proved to have lied. I don't know any clearer way to explain that to you.

<yawn> BSA: Measuring poverty: Breadline Britain in the 1990s

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/sites/default/files/chapt 1 BB1990s.pdf


BHPS: The British Household Panel Survey and its income data

https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/iser/2010-33.pdf


LFS: Polarisation by housing tenure

http://www.poverty.org.uk/76/index.shtml

And as you have kindly confessed to the utter dishonesty and unworthiness of your motive -- to waste my time, and crow that you are making me "squirm" -- I will not be answering any further time-wasters on this subject.

No, it's a fabrication by you.

Utter bollocks.

Nope. The "evidence" was fabricated by selective redefinition of "poor."

You continue to lie, and to be caught in your lies.

I've already explained it: it's a fabrication, a simple matter of redefining "poor" until half of them own real estate.

 

No, you've maintained the cultist response, nothing more. Its not even a case of cognitive dissonance as, in your desperation, you've made it terribly clear that you will make up comment in order to try and big yourself out. I'm not going to let you off the hook, finding your squirming just a little (just a little mind you) entertaining. You stated that you had checked the BSA, BHPS and LFS datasets. [FONT=&amp]Why don&#8217;t you tell me where you did this? Did you download the data from the Data Archive? [/FONT]I won't be accepting blind googling of papers that use those datasets (where you deliberately misrepresent). Golly, that would just be cretinous! The person would make stupid errors like referencing a paper that doesn't use BSA data (just refers to one question) or present an introductory document that goes through BHPS data methods as something pertinent...

Try this one: "The report concludes that we can be confident in following Burrows and Wilcox (2000) in claiming that home owners constitute about half the poor in
Britain"

Yep, obvious point. One that you'd know if you had any clue over how poverty methodologies have evolved. The early work by Rowntree adopted an absolute poverty methodology (using calories and then costing of the basket of goods to achieve the minimum limit). This sparked the debate over how poverty is relative, and through Townsend, led to a consensus poverty approach (often financed by the JRF) which also- whilst changing the analysis from absolute poverty and broadening the key indicators- often uses the same machinery to calculate the poverty threshold

I've already demonstrated that you've misinterpreted the paper. See above quote. You've also put your foot in it as Table 6 gives results based on 3 methods. The accepted poverty methodologies are consistent with what I've said and allow Burrows to conclude that "it is now much less helpful than it was in the past to think of poverty in terms of renters and owners". We only have one methodology that disputes that finding, using an approach which is not standard that focuses on perceived different types of need: normative, felt, expressed and comparative. So your position is again based on ignoring the bulk of the literature and blindly assuming just one source is correct. You've of course chosen that source based on two aspects: you know that the literature is inconsistent with your position but, given the cultist approach adopted, you cannot adapt accordingly. Its akin to dissonance, given you rationalise rather adopt a rational approach. However, given the religious undertones, its just a little more vulgar!

You've been found out, again! This is always going to happen as economic reality really isn't your chum...

 

Content = 0.

You don't have a choice, because I was never on any hook.

I already did, as you know but are deliberately trying to deceive your readers about. And as you already confessed to the disgraceful fact that you had no intention of accepting any citations I might give, because your only intent was to waste my time and crow that you were making me "squirm," I'll not be providing you with any more grist for your auto-erotic activites. Not going to work, sorry.

I gave you the sources you requested, so now you have merely again proved your dishonesty and unworthiness of response.

Or anything else, as you already confessed to being completely dishonest and despicable on this point.

That's just more evil, dishonest filth from you.

Which is probably why you did it.

Or the person, having accidentally confessed to being absolutely dishonest, despicable and evil, could have already admitted that he intended to reject any and all citations of the data he requested, as his objective was only to create an appearance of having made me "squirm."

That clearly and indisputably doesn't say what you claim it says. So you are just lying again. Your claim was that half of British homeowners are poor. That says half the British poor are homeowners. Two entirely different statements. Obviously.

So I am still waiting for the evidence for your claim that half of British homeowners are poor.

Oh, and I am enjoying your squirming immensely.

Obviously false and unsupportable, that is.

But I am enjoying watching you squirm to rationalize your false and idiotic claim.

But where is your evidence that poverty measures are inherently linked to Joseph Rowntree? You've given some incidental and quite irrelevant historical background, but have not supported your claim.

Squirm, little boy, squirm...

No, that's just another flat-out lie from you, as I already proved, remember? Here it is again:

Table 5 on p 25 proves that using the Bradshaw and Finch measure of poverty, only 32% of the poor are homeowners. On p 26, commenting on Table 6, Burrows states explicitly that you deliberately lied:

"We can also note that, as the definition of
poverty becomes more and more restricted, the
proportion of those in poverty who are home
owners &#8211; the focus of our concern here &#8211;
decreases."

Yes. Do. In fact, here it is again, just to inspire you to greater efforts in your squirming practice:


"We can also note that, as the definition of
poverty becomes more and more restricted, the
proportion of those in poverty who are home
owners &#8211; the focus of our concern here &#8211;
decreases."

Got that, Reiver? That is Burrows STATING EXPLICITLY that YOU ARE LYING about HIS WORK.

It does indeed. One of which proves you objectively wrong. As I said. And as you have repeatedly lied about.

Squirm, little boy, squirm...

Nope. Burrows stated explicitly that you are lying, and only the least restrictive (i.e., least accurate) definitions of poverty have been contorted enough to make it look as though half the poor are homeowners. See above quote.

Hehe. "Helpful" to whom, I wonder, and for what...? Burrows is apparently aware of the difference between what is "helpful" to some agenda and what is factually accurate....

Lie. Burrows STATED EXPLICITLY that ANY more restrictive poverty measure will result in a smaller fraction of the poor being homeowners.

You are just flat-out lying. Again. As usual.

No, you're just lying again about what I have plainly written. I've simply proved you were lying when you claimed the "half the poor are homeowners" nonsense was robust across all poverty measures. Burrows explicitly stated that you were lying. Remember? Do you want me to repeat the quote AGAIN? I can keep posting it as long as you keep squirming.

I haven't "chosen" that source at all. I simply pointed out that it is one source Burrows provides that flat-out proves you were lying.

"Religious" undertones?? ROTFL!!!!

Speaking of economic reality, I'm not the one who claimed half of homeowners are poor, sonny. You are. When are you going to provide some evidence for that claim, hmmmmmmmmmm? Being, unlike you, honest, I will accept any reasonable citation of a source to support that claim. But being, again unlike you, able to identify elementary logical fallacies, I won't be accepting claims that half of A are B as evidence that half of B are A. So try again.

Squirm, litle boy, squirm...

 

Again there is no content, as you go for blag to hide from empirical reality. We have traditional (and widely accepted) poverty methodology confirming that 50% of the poor are home owners. We have you deliberately misrepresenting the paper, actually referring to the table that confirms the validity of my position. We have you deliberately fibbing that you have checked data source. We have that fibbing being particularly low brow as you google the wrong articles, even going as far as giving a paper that doesn't even use any of mentioned datasets. We have you stamping your foot and giving incoherent prance as you know you've put your foot in it again.

Of course we shouldn't have expected any more. Someone that saays owner occupiers are worse than thieves isn't going to be too practiced in the sense stakes.