Death tax

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by trickyricky, Nov 6, 2017.

  1. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Failure, and success, is available to all people...
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Technically not. America's underclass suggests only continued failure is available. Of course its not about individual behaviour, nor about merit
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  3. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really? How is success not available to all people?
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can they have a right forcibly to remove everyone else's rights?
    Garbage. The tax is voluntary, as they bought the land knowing they would have to keep the taxes current as a condition of maintaining the government-issued and -enforced title. Basically the same as paying privately for insurance, security guards, etc.
    Also false. Their authority is quite limited. But at least you are aware that landowning is simply a conditional delegation of sovereign government authority.
     
  5. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really? How is success not available to all people?
     
  6. Econ4Every1

    Econ4Every1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The issue is one of income disparity.

    The economy works best when money is flowing. When reasonably few people control a vast amount of money, the flow of money slows.

    The velocity of money (the number of times each dollar changes hands:

    [​IMG]

    If we look at wealth statistics by economic quintile we see that the bottom 80% were making decent gains until about 1997, about the same time velocity began to slow.

    [​IMG]

    Inheritance slows the flow of money as the money earned at the top 5% isn't invested in ways that put people in the bottom 80% to work. Buying an expensive Yaght puts people to work, but buying securities or stock or bonds or even saving doesn't put people to work.

    From a practical standpoint, this model will create increasing inequality as fewer and fewer people capture larger and larger amount of money.

    Is this wrong? Is this unfair?

    That's a good question. Ultimately I really don't care to describe it in those terms, I just look at the result and ask, is this good for America as a nation?

    I think the answer is clearly, no.

    Some might disagree with me, and that's fine, I can agree to disagree on this point unless you think there is a good reason to believe that there is evidence that this model works, I'd be glad to listen to it.

    The other possible solution to the problem is that, instead of taking money from the wealthy in the form of taxes to reduce income disparity, we can give money to those at the bottom. So instead of reducing wealth at the top, we increase wealth at the bottom as a way of reducing income inequality.

    Either way, someone is getting the money they didn't earn. Either those inheriting money get the money they didn't earn or those at the bottom end of the economy receive money or benefits they didn't earn.

    The difference is that the benefactors of the wealthy who leave enough money to be taxed will still have more than enough money to last them a lifetime, while those at the bottom will receive benefits that over a lifetime won't equal the amount left to the children of the wealthy.

    Now, the wealthy (and all the temporarily inconvenienced millionaires here) call it envy. I would respond by calling it selfish.

    The issue isn't about the individual by but the strength of our nation as a whole.
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everyone has to pay landowners full market value just for PERMISSION to access economic opportunity. When you have to pay someone else for permission to be successful, success is not available to you.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds like you're socialist. Ownership of the means of production after all. Try to respond with economics!
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, socialists pretend that capital is land, just as capitalist pretend land is capital. I only say that land is land and capital is capital.
    The Marxist phrase, "the means of production" invalidly aggregates unlikes: land and capital. Following Marx's lead, socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital. Capitalists, and the neoclassical economists whose mission is to concoct plausible rationalizations for capitalism's injustices, have gleefully adopted Marx's error, but for the opposite motive: they pretend land is capital to justify stealing land.
    Try to control your sphincter.
     
  10. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    might makes right, private or public property owners are backed by lawful government force.

    tax on land is always involuntary because individuals do not have any rights against the might of government.

    landowners like most individuals act under the threat of force when ordered to forfeit the product of their labor.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Marx is a crucial figure in understanding property rights. Free of limitations such as methodological individualism, he's able to focus on its endogeneity according to economic development. Your viewpoint is therefore just Georgist prattle. Indeed, if you look at New Institutional Economics- and how it understands economic planning- the approach is little different to Marx's contribution all those years ago. Marx just goes further and factors in class conflict.
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, Marx is only a crucial figure in misunderstanding property rights. He could never find a willingness to know the fact that the capital owner contributes producer goods to production, and therefore has a valid property right to the share of production he obtains as his market return.
    Regarding which he was objectively incorrect.
    That is just name-calling without content, as I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist.
    No, it is quite different, and not as wrong.
    He goes further than the facts can justify, and introduces the spurious and misleading concept of class conflict.
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Might does not make right, that is a vacuous claim. And the fact that they are backed by lawful government force is uninformative: so were slave owners, until government recognized the injustice of their spurious claims of "property rights."
    No, that claim is always false and absurd because it is always government and government alone that secures people's rights at all. And a tax on land is always voluntary, because landowners have always obtained their land titles from government on the condition that any relevant taxes be kept current.
    But we always know for certain that the land is not a product of their labor, so they are always the ones on whose behalf government is always using force to deprive everyone else of their natural liberty to use it.

    Your statements on this subject are always the exact, diametric opposite of the truth.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is just more prattle, with naff all economics (as usual). That Marx is still relevant to property rights analysis is a matter of fact. Perhaps you'd like to critique New Institutional Economics (please take some time to google and blag, rather than just blubbering)? And where are the Georgists? Irrelevant of course. George couldn't maintain the relevance of his land tax bobbins! And the muppets that still follow him, but are so desperate to pretend otherwise? Perhaps George's failure accounts for their frustration, as they are surely left with nothing more than morality rant.
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <yawn> As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
    No, he's only historically relevant, as phlogiston theory is to chemistry or Lamarckism to biology.
    Not really. It's better than autistic (neoclassical) economics, but still gets some basic concepts wrong.
    The facts did that for him, as the price of a building lot proves.
    Contentless spew.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This amused me. Where does New Institutionalism get 'basic concepts wrong'? Try to refer to economics!
     
  17. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    landowners like most individuals surrender to government taxation because might makes right.

    that is not consensual, but necessary to govern a country.

    only the rich are entitled to natural liberty because they are backed by lawful government force, your statements always mislead the truth.
     
  18. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, because might is mighty.
    It's consensual because they knew they'd have to pay the tax when they bought the land. That was one of the terms of the sale. You can't claim it wasn't consensual just because it was a term they wish were more generous.
    Gibberish.
    My statements are objectively correct.
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It broadly accepts the invalid Marxist/neoclassical aggregations that treat unlikes alike. It consequently lacks separate valid concepts of debt money, deposit money and fiat money, and does not validly distinguish between assets whose ownership contributes to production, diverts production and impedes production.
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is drivel. New Institutionalism essentially replaces the ahistorical theory of the firm adopted in neoclassical economics. It builds on concepts such as transaction costs in order to understand vertical and horizontal integration. It applies game theory to appreciate how there is no such thing as an optimal sized firm, with the likes of 'hold-up' used to appreciate how economic planning can outperform reliance on the market.

    Unable to make relevant comment, you're clearly making bobbins up. However, I'm happy for you to pretend otherwise. Refer me to one credible economic source in support your comment. I'm predicting none will be offered, obviously...
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously it's not of a nature that you are either able or willing to understand.
    Right: it uses much the same invalid concepts that neoclassical economics uses, and consequently doesn't make much of an advance on it.
    You asked, I answered. I'm not responsible for your refusal to know facts.
    No, you are just not able to understand what I wrote.
    "Credible." Right. So, credible (peer-reviewed) sources in neoclassical or new institutional economics are going to provide support for the view that they have got the fundamental concepts all wrong, and are consequently a waste of time.

    Talk about drivel...
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And my prediction came true! To be honest, your blag really was poor quality. Taking an approach that focuses on replacing microeconomic theory of the firm and pretend macro critique really was spectacularly silly.
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mine too: you can't understand what I wrote.
    I suppose it was probably only two or three standard deviations better than yours.
    Which you just made up.
    You are a joke.
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think bluster will work? Crikey! You've been caught out peddling absolute garbage as economic critique. Now I'm no fan of New Institutionalism (e.g. Penrosian analysis arguably has more value in constructing an evolutionary approach to the firm). However, to blag macro comment when the focus in micro just illustrated zero economic comprehension.
     

Share This Page