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

Government subsidy on agricultural land is so small as not to be relevant to any commercial decision I make.
I think I offered you the figure already. 0.2%.
I don't even claim it.

Buying things where there is no government.
I have an example of this.

Black market goods.
One of the interesting phenomenons of the black market, is that there is no inflation. While taxable goods have gone up in price fifty fold over my lifetime. Over the last 30 years, a bit of weed has remained the same price exactly.

Other places routinely offer discounts for cash as this can avoid taxation.
As do many employee's/contractors.

If you are a producer in the economy, take the government out and life gets cheaper. And the reason for this is Government forces you to pay for things you don't want.

As far as I am aware the bulk of government spending goes on government wages (and pensions). I expect these people to be left wingers. I expect private sector people to be right wingers.


No I don't allow government services on my land. It's private. If they show up, I run them off. Government has it's own land to play with.

To make government spending more efficient...? Lol. End it.
Not pay some expensive knob cheese to talk bollocks about it and further justify the continuation of it on stupid ****.

 

That's the least of the subsidies you get from government as a landowner.

The unimproved market value of your land is the market's estimate of how big a net subsidy from government and the community you will pocket by owning the land. That's just a fact.

Obviously wrong.

No they haven't. Only land has, because that's how much the expected subsidy has increased.

Which proves exactly nothing.

Free riders like landowners get benefits without paying for them. So what?

It does indeed: anyone can take it from you for a few bucks.

True: it forces the productive to pay for subsidies to rich, greedy, privileged parasites like landowners.

But in fact, your expectations are incorrect. Both public and private sector employees are a mix of left and right. In both cases, the farther down the hierarchy you go, the fewer right wingers.

Yes, of course you do. Lots of government services and infrastructure are accessible from and on "your" land.

ROTFL!! Sure you do, Baff. Sure you do. You are such a badass -- in your fervid imagination.

If you try to run government agents off "your" land, more of them will come until you are dead. Deal with it.

And if government services were not available on "your" land, there would be nothing to stop some other aspiring parasite from just taking you out of the picture:

Yep, and it includes the land you incorrectly imagine to be "yours." Government exercises sovereign authority over the specific area of land within its jurisdiction, including yours, because that's what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land.

If government gets its revenue by recovering the subsidy it gives to landowners, that aligns government's own incentives with the public interest in productive private use of land and efficient spending of public revenue on desirable services and infrastructure. Indeed, it is the ONLY POSSIBLE revenue system that can do that. That is why rich, greedy, privileged parasites hate it, and oppose it with such maniacal ferocity.

The results are in: countries with larger government shares of GDP are better places to live. Countries with the smallest government shares of GDP are invariably $#!+holes. That's just a fact.

 

Right young fella, rather than you explain to me what subsidies I get.
You want to pay attention.

In another thread a kind bloke is teaching me graduate level statistics. In this thread I've got you.

I don't have to speak to you and I don't have to waste my time educating you. While you rudely spout bollocks and explain my life to me as if you actually know the very first thing about it or anything else at all.

I have nothing at all to learn from you and you are 100% unable to learn anything from me. You aren't funny, you aren't informative, you aren't challenging or original, You aren't even civil. Just argumentative and ultimately boring.

I guess you know where I'm going with this.

 

Oh, I pay attention all right. Count on it. But to facts, not to you. That's how I know about the subsidies to landowners.

You have a lot more to learn from me than from him.

<yawn> I am the one who has been schooling you, child, on everything from monetary and land economics to spelling and Japanese.

I have proved you outright wrong on every substantive claim you have presumed to dispute with me. All you have offered are baldly false factual claims, moral "arguments" that would justify slavery, and risible claims about running people off "your" land at gunpoint like you are some kind of Rambo cartoon.

Some people would get a bit pensive after that kind of comprehensive humiliation. Not you, though....

Oh, I've learned a lot from you about how refractory the self-serving delusions of the privileged are.

You know you are wrong on every one of those counts. Your problem is that you have realized I am funnier, more informative, more challenging and more original than you.

OK, guilty.

Nope. I am definitely not boring, and I only argue with people who try to rationalize and justify evil. That's you.

Yep. With your tail between your legs.

 

well sure, it is obvious that tax increases dry up the private economy and tax cuts stimulate it

 

In fact, that's false. Tax cuts only stimulate the economy to the extent that the resulting deficits increase the money supply.

 

so you're saying that if you cut a families taxes and they use the money to take a vacation that vacation won't stimulate the economy?

 

Right. It's just money the family uses for a vacation instead of government using it to build infrastructure, pay someone's medical bill, buy drones, or whatever. You appear to believe that when government obtains tax revenue, the money is just burned, or dumped into the sea, and is not spent buying goods and services in the economy much as consumers do. That is an absurd belief, sorry.

 

Personal income tax cuts are a Keynesian economic stimulus tactic. They work much better than government spending.

Nice job ignoring the recessions in the 2000's and the Clinton capital gains tax cuts of the mid 90's which resulted in a huge increase in cap gains tax revenues which accounted for ~ 25% of the total Clinton surpluses. Clinton was a supply sider.

 

The government is a very poor consumer in that it distorts markets plus it charges an ~ 20% fee to spend taxpayers income for them. Infrastructure is only economically beneficial if it reduces the overall cost of production. Bridges to nowhere are a waste of money and human capital.

 

Could you point me to a Keynesian analysis which refers to personal income taxes working better than government spending? If not, can you refer to the Keynesian theory that suggests it?

 

"Many politicians and academics interpreted Keynes to favor government spending as the best way to right the economic ship, but he also suggested tax policy could do the job of boosting demand."
Dale O. Cloninger, Professor Emeritus, Economics & Finance, University of Houston-Clear Lake from my iPhone

 

great point!! it not only distorts markets but it creates huge monopoly bubbles that burst causing recessions and depressions until the free market can put things back in their proper places.

 

You wonder why I can't be arsed with your comments? "Could you point me to a Keynesian analysis which refers to personal income taxes working better than government spending?"

 

Economic history proves that reducing personal income tax rates is superior. The reason is that individuals are better able to address their own needs.

 

So you can't actually refer to any Keynesian analysis that says income tax reductions are superior? Let's widen the net then. Refer me to any economic history analysis that concludes income tax reductions are superior?

 

Progressives believe that government is always the answer. Reagan correctly stated that government is the problem.

 

Reagan tax rate reductions vs the Obama stimulus.

 

a monopoly spends other people's money very very inefficiently and thus the money is largely wasted and our standard of living declines. Look at our health care system, look at USSR, Red China, Cuba. Now do you understand? In a free market you must be more efficiently every day than any company on earth just to survive. This is why you starve to death under communism and get rich under Republican capitalism.

 

I've not asked you to whine about progressives. I've asked you to support your position. You made a big deal about tax cuts being a better Keynesian instrument than expenditure increases. Were you talking bobbins?

 

Reaganomics was Military Keynesianism. Very bad choice! You said "economic history proves". Surely you can refer to just one credible economic source in support?

 

sure, the USA works better than Cuba because we spend our own money while in Cuba it is taxed away at gunpoint by a govt monopoly with no concept of efficiency and then largely wasted.

 

obviously freedom to spend your own money works better than govt taxing and spending. Ever heard of East/West Germany?

 

Given this is the quality of your posts, goodbye!

 

These results are consistent with those conducted by economists David and Christine Romer in their study on the economic impact of changes in taxation, which also found that tax cuts correlated with more growth than spending increases.