"I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong. Tax cuts don't equal growth."

Did our Henry just childishly claim 'you is evil you is' when confronted with a different perspective?

 

No, when confronted with a bald fabrication about what he had plainly written.

Evil must always be justified. The only way to justify it is with lies. So those who are trying to rationalize and justify evil, or attacking those who oppose evil, always have to resort to lies. It is when the other side routinely lies that you know you are on the side of good, and against evil.

 

You're a Georgist that doesn't know George. A morality ranter that celebrates someone known for concentration camps. Pathetic.

 

Which pretty much puts the lie to your claim that I am reliant on him, doesn't it?

I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist, as you know. You just say, "Henry" whenever you know you can't refute what I have written, and pretend that is somehow an argument. So I am not the one who is reliant on Henry George. You are.

What a juvenile load of horse$#!+. Churchill known for concentration camps?? You mean for leading the global resistance to the regime that made the most prolific use of them, don't you?

 

Georgism requires some understanding of economics. You show none.

Churchill's support for concentration camps is well documented. Shame on you and your bankrupt morality.

 

Georgeism as in Land Value Tax?

 

Yep! He peddles the rhetoric, without knowing the economics.

 

Which is just another absurd, disingenuous and baseless claim to go along with all the other absurd, disingenuous and baseless claims you have essayed exclusively in your responses to my posts. You are a complete waste of time, electricity, food, water, and air.

<yawn> As a more humane alternative to war and extermination.

 

I prefer location subsidy repayment (LSR), which is a more accurate and general term.

 

Shouldn't you just refer to economics to try and prove me wrong? Have a try!

Churchill didn't defeat fascism. Millions of people achieved that. He did, however, support imperialism. He did, however, support concentration camps to ensure imperialist power. That you hero-worship such a figure merely illustrate that you can't even get morality rant right!

 

Please present the economic analysis that shows the efficiency criteria behind an apparent LSR.

 

I take it you are against LVT or LSR as Brighton puts it?

 

Georgism has its place. LVT soon become irrelevant, but Georgists still have significant comment on environmentalism. The other fellow is just a morality ranter. That fell apart when he celebrated imperalism

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Efficiency

LSR just uses a direct measure of the subsidy to the landowner (land rent) instead of taking exchange value as a proxy, which would introduce sources of inaccuracy.

"Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent."

— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses

See also: Stiglitz, Joseph (1977). "The theory of local public goods". In Feldstein, Martin; Inman, Robert. The Economics of Public Services. London: Macmillan Publishers. pp. 274–333:

"Not only was Henry George correct that a tax on land is nondistortionary, but in an equilitarian society ... tax on land raises just enough revenue to finance the (optimally chosen) level of government expenditure."

Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate, as is Paul Samuelson:

"Our ideal society finds it essential to put a rent on land as a way of maximizing the total consumption available to the society. ...Pure land rent is in the nature of a 'surplus' which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called 'the useful tax on measured land surplus'."

No doubt you will now contrive some absurd, disingenuous and baseless excuse to dismiss the work of virtually all great economists.

 

Is that it? Some petty effort at referring to Georgism support? That really is childish. Why can't you actually refer to economics? Why are you completely reliant on tosh like "you're evil" (while then getting a hard-on over an imperialist who celebrated concentration camps)? Weird

 

The only reason we have one single currency is because the federal government only accepts US dollars in payment for taxes due. Prior to the late 1800s, banks and states created localized currencies. That all went away when it became apparent that the only currency allowed was a US dollar. We enforced that by taxation.

 

The only fear of pure fiat money is inflation. That is the only brake on it. We have virtually no inflation. If we ever do spiral into an inflationary period, all we have to do is dial back spending and increase interest rates or tax the hell out of everyone to destroy money. Get out of your world of gold based currency. We can make money out of thin air. That is how we operate right now.

 

absurd of course,
1) obviously having 2000 different currencies was very very inefficient
2) it was enforced by common sense
3) any currency you had from USA or abroad could be converted to pay taxes.

back to drawing board for you I'm afraid.

 

Actually, I know far more about economics than you think. I am trying to rid you of your outdated and incorrect views of macro economics. Inflation in this country and in this era is almost impossible to see under current policies and global trade policies. Ask yourself what could possibly drive inflation fears right now that has not already occurred according to classical economic thinking. Too much money in the system? Wrong, we have trillions upon trillions of dollars floating around. Too much money chasing too few goods? Wrong. The world now has more capacity to provide us with stuff than we can possibly use or want. Debt in foreign denominations or gold making our dollar so weak that is resembles Germany or Argentina in past eras? Nope, we owe nothing to anyone that is not in our own sovereign currency. Sure we have rising prices for this or that based upon some scarcity of a raw material but as soon as it rises, we produce some alternative that is cheaper. Sorry, inflation is not our fear. Our fear should be that the money in circulation is distributed unevenly creating massive poverty and eventually revolution. Macro needs to address the truth about our fiat money, it is simply a tool to keep all of us at a certain level of comfort and sustaining an acceptable lifestyle. Fiat money and smart policies can achieve these goals, debts can be wiped out if needed, all we need to do is escape our commitment to economic theory based upon the gold standard.

 

Actually, you are wrong. The US government accepts only US dollars in payment for taxes. Ask yourself a simple question. If I were to create a new nation and a new currency, how would I get everyone to use it and not some other currency? Think about it. This happened in the US over a century ago as we expanded West. Individual banks created their own monies. The Confederate States did as well. How did we get them to get rid of them? By forcing them to pay taxes in US dollars, by the government only paying in US dollars and by banks lending US dollars.

 

This may help those of you who think my ideas are blasphemy.



The video is by a Professor of Economics who is one of the leading voices in the MMT movement.

 

Unitl you fail to pay and then it will also accept your car, your house, your business, your shares, your jewelry and even your TV.

They will take foreign currency. Oh yes they will.

 

I have to agree with you on that. Government, in lieu of dollars, will confiscate any property of value which can be converted into money through auction, and does so quite frequently.

 

That's not what Wolley meant and you either know it and are being snarky, or you don't realize the distinction between only accepting dollars as payment and taking property that can be sold or foreign dollars that can be exchanged, for dollars. The point is, you can't plop down your gold watch in payment of your taxes, but if you fail to pay your taxes and the only thing the government can take is your gold watch, they will (and sell it for dollars).

 

Its not obvious at all because you are not calculating the economic benefits that those taxes, when spent, accrue for that individual or country. Whether they provide security, safety, educational opportunities etc, directly or as an indirect affect, which provide enough social stability/ mobility that economic growth is sustainable. How much 'economic health' do you have in a war zone, or a high crime zone or near a toxic dump or in region where skilled workers, roads, developed natural resources, mass transit, or access to capital is scarce?

You may not say higher taxes provided you with a new car, but if those taxes provided for safer streets, better schools, a new sewage treatment plant, a new sports arena or a new airport , or a four lane highway through the town, or mass transit options etc, then more businesses will open and capital will flow through the community, and that means better paying jobs, which means you might be able to afford that new car.