Interesting how the Texan's redistribute the wealth......to the rich on the backs of the poor and middle class. Perry's true colors are starting to show. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/rick-perry-texas-tax-system_n_931623.html
While Perry apparently does want to shift the burden of taxation even more off the rich and onto the poor and middle classes, property taxes do not do that. In fact, of all the taxes we have, property taxes burden the poor the least and the rich the most. That is why so many states have acted to cap and reduce property taxes, a la Proposition 13. The intention is to minimize the tax burden borne by the rich.
That's a terribly over-simplistic comment. There's an extensive literature into the regressivity of property taxes. Here's one chosen at random: Ihlanfeldt (1982, Property tax incidence on owner-occupied housing: evidence from the annual housing survey, National Tax Journal, Vol. 35 Issue 1, pp 89-97): "Results indicate that the property tax is highly regressive for low income homeowners, but is more appropriately classified as proportional at higher income levels"
No, it's factually correct. Almost all of it stupid, anti-scientific garbage that ignores principles of epistemology and economic law -- i.e., the exact kind of dishonest rationalization for landowner privilege that forms the entire corpus of your "understanding" of land economics and taxation economics. Yes, that paper is a good example of the dishonest, anti-scientific disinformation propaganda that constitutes the entire corpus of your "understanding" of land economics and taxation economics. First proof that the paper is devoted to anti-scientific fallacy: restricting the range by ignoring tenants, to find or contrive some tiny fraction of the population for which the overall relationship does not hold. Second proof that the paper is devoted to anti-scientific fallacy: using income as the measure of ability to pay, when by definition assets, not income, are the measure of ability to pay. The paper is so stupid, anti-scientific and dishonest, that it considers a billionaire with no income to have lower ability to pay than a minimum wage worker. Third proof that the paper is devoted to anti-scientific fallacy: cited by Reiver. 'Nuff said.
When confronted with empirical evidence I just knew you'd respond with your land tax rant. I'm going to ignore the standard script as its stupendously silly, only referring to your bogus attempt at critique. One should of course note that there isn't a conspiracy out there to bogusly show that property taxes are regressive. They just are! The nature of these taxes aren't consistent with your utopian view; a view completely reliant on ignoring reality. You're making zero sense. The paper investigates the incidence of the property tax on owner-occupied housing. It achieves that aim. Nonsense on two counts. First, its a matter of obviousness that- in terms of understanding regressivity- we're going to have to refers to results across the income distribution. Second, the paper actually uses the permanent income elasticity of property tax payments. Permanent income is defines as the aggregate of family income (estimated using an IV regression methodology) and estimated implicit rental income gained through ownership of housing equity. I'm not surprised that you are so reliant on immature response. You've made a very basic error based on ignoring the available evidence...
But in fact I didn't, so you were wrong again, as usual. You are just flat-out lying about what I plainly wrote. Blah, blah, stupid and contentless blah. No, the paper dishonestly tries to paint the most progressive tax we have, the property tax, as regressive, by committing two fallacies. No, it is a matter of obviouness that ability to pay is by definition conferred by assets, not income. Measuring progressivity of taxes by reference to income rather than assets is just lying, as I already proved to you. I.e., it dishonestly "estimates" ability to pay using bogus methods calculated to exploit the fact that people become more likely to own real estate equity as they approach and enter retirement. It's nothing but disinformation. No, I have exposed your cited reference as the lie it is.
I do think you need to try and disguise your rant a little. Youre not coming across as someone with even the most marginal understanding of tax systems. Just a little advice mind you! You havent been able to give one credible rebuke over the papers methodology. Youve simply dismissed it as it shows regressivity and that doesnt fit with your one dimensional approach on these issues You again show that you do not understand what regressivity means! I could accept that of course. Youre not well read on the subject so an honest mistake cannot be discounted. However, youve twinned it with deliberate misrepresentation of the papers methodology. Well add permanent income to the concepts that you dont understand. That would account for this nonsensical reply. Im not surprised that youre unaware of validity of the imputed rent approach and how it can be used to adjust for non-cash housing tenure effects. No, youve followed your usual routine: dismissing without bothering to acquire a sense of validity. Ive seen no evidence that youve even read the paper. It would of course be great if you have. Adding to the literature that youve perused can only benefit you and increase the likelihood of you referring to actual tax systems. Lets add to it and consider a completely different country (so you can refer to a worldwide conspiracy). Wood (1999, Home-owner Residential Property Taxes and their Burden on Net Personal Wealth: An Empirical Study for Australia, Urban Studies, Vol. 36, pp 239-254) writes on controlling for stage in the life-cycle, the formal incidence of residential property taxes on home-owners' net wealth is clearly regressive with respect to the income of home-owners
It's interesting to note that nearly every anti-Perry thread on this forum has sourced Huffpo. The good lil minions of the left are certainly good at passing along the smears, aren't they? As pointed out in the sourced article: The fact that the FEDERAL govt imposes gasoline taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes and all kinds of FCC taxes is what strains the pocketbooks of poor Americans. Texas isn't unique in that scenario... except Perry's running for president and it's Huffpo's mission to throw mud his way. Another lame attempt at diverting attention from Perry's accomplishments.
Perrys proposal is to increase the poors income tax to lower the consumption taxes.. This benefits the wealthy more because they will pay lower consumption taxes. The only way to target the wealthy without the middle class is increasing their income tax not lowering consumption taxes
Lie. I proved in two different ways that it doesn't show regressivity. It's very plain: "Regressive taxes tend to reduce the tax incidence of people with higher ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with lower ability-to-pay." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax I am aware that a concerted effort has been made to redefine "ability to pay" as "income," in order to promulgate the objectively false view that a billionaire with no income has less ability to pay than a minimum wage worker. Lie. <yawn> I understand, as you apparently do not, that permanent income is not assets, and is consequently not a valid measure of ability to pay. But not with any accuracy. Blah, blah, stupid and contentless blah. Again, three blatant fallacies render this silly paper dishonest and thus worthless: 1. excising non-residential real estate holdings from owners' property tax burdens (!!); 2. excising tenants, who do not pay property taxes, from the study population; 3. measuring regressivity with respect to income, when income is not a valid measure of ability to pay.
Youve provided nothing of value or of interest. We simply have a paper using appropriate permanent income techniques to demonstrate regressivity of a property tax. Just in case you have a problem with the permanent income approach (Im being sarcastic here as you havent understood it), I also provided a life cycle alternative. And guess what? That other publication also confirms regressivity. You might not like that, but we have a clear conclusion: you made a ridiculously oversimplistic comment that isnt supported by the available empirical evidence. Then you have no excuse for your bogus attempt at critique. Deliberately making basic error, given the appropriate empirical methodology being employed, illustrates the severe limiting consequences of the ideology that youve chosen to worship. Just a repetition of your failure to understand permanent income and how it is estimated. Youve been caught out again. Referring to income when the paper refers to permanent income (which also includes imputed rents) demonstrates how you are willing to make deliberate misrepresentation of published paper. Again, you ignore that assets are taken into account. Imputed rent, by definition, refers to non-cash gains from home ownership (and subsidized housing tenure) There are some measurement problems created through, for example, welfare analysis into segregation. However, its not difficult to consider such issues and they certainly wont eliminate the importance of imputed rent to adjust for non-case housing tenure effects. You did well here! By not claiming that you have indeed read the paper you havent had to give an obvious fib. Another paper you havent read! This is nonsensical. The clue is in the title: its an analysis of home-owner residential property taxes. Those taxes, despite your terribly simplistic claim, are found to be regressive. Tut tut, youve openly advertised that youre making claims without reading the paper. The empirical analysis uses two samples. The first is restricted to owner occupiers in order to capture the distributional properties of residential property taxes if they are intended as a tax on home-owners' net personal wealth. This is then combined with renters in order to examine the distributional properties of residential property taxes, as if it is intended to be a tax on the personal sector's accumulated net wealth holdings. The paper is of course reliant on measuring personal wealth. And lets quote from the author: First, on controlling for life-cycle effects, the formal incidence of rates on net wealth is clearly regressive. Thats another oops moment for you
I proved the permanent income technique is not appropriate -- it doesn't even pretend to measure ability to pay -- and that the paper consequently demonstrates no such thing. I proved it doesn't, for three distinct reasons. The empirical evidence you have cited does not even address regressivity, as already proved, because it does not relate property tax burden to ability to pay (assets). I proved it wasn't appropriate, so you can stop lying. Blah, blah, stupid contentless blah. No, I proved you lied again. That's just a flat-out lie. By definition, ability to pay can only validly be measured by assets. "Permanent income" is just wild-@$$ guessing, and the author's imputation of rent is no better, given the proved-dishonest methods employed in the rest of the paper. ?? LOL! How are assets "taken into account," hmmm? With some silly statistical estimation process, not an actual attempt to relate individual assets to individual property tax burden. So you can stop lying. And on your planet, that might even be relevant. You are the world champion of throwing out irrelevancies and pretending they are arguments. You will do it again in your response to this post, which I probably will decline to waste my time on. Blah, blah, irrelevant blah. IOW, it has nothing relevant to say about the relationship of property tax burden to ability to pay. As I said. No, they are claimed to be regressive on the basis of irrelevant, fallacious and dishonest arguments that deliberately ignore all valid measures of both property tax burden and ability to pay. I.e., by ignoring their non-residential real estate holdings.... I.e., by ignoring what it is actually a tax on... No, it explicitly ignores personal wealth. It only estimates a statistical distribution of personal wealth. LOL! No, it merely shows the author is willing to chant dishonest inanities. "Controlling for life cycle effects" just means, "ignoring actual ability to pay."
Youre very bad at pretending knowledge. You only demonstrated that, without reading a paper, you are prepared to misrepresent it. You referred to income, without realising that it undertakes a permanent income approach. Your reaction to permanent income analysis has been infantile, as you ignore how it is easily utilised within a framework of imputed rents. That Ive added to the analysis with basic life cycle analysis, which leads to a very specific analysis into wealth effects, only shows how far behind youve fallen in terms of reasoned rational comment. You have no valid reasons, only repetition of comments more suited to a conspiracy theory forum. Again, your ideology has clouded your ability to respond with any sense of validity. Youve made nonsensical charge over standard regressivity analysis, despite the reality of this analysis including wealth issues. Repetition of a deliberate misrepresentation! Both papers, by definition, include assets in their analysis. Youve simply assumed a simple income measure in order to maintain your script (which obviously is based on ignoring published analysis in peer reviewed journal; a standard requirement for the conspiracy theorist) Youve acknowledged that definitions are straight-forward (as shown by maintaining your obsessive use of wikipedia). Despite that, youve chosen to misrepresent the analysis in peer reviewed academic journal. You either do not understand those straight-forward definitions or youre prepared to ignore reality. Ive assumed the former as Im an optimistic type. When confronted with published evidence you go off on one. Youre reliant on that as you know that the published evidence doesnt agree with your ideology. Its an approach consistent with a cultish approach and of course, given that, I dont expect you to acknowledge it. This only shows ignorance of permanent income analysis and also imputed rent analysis. I appreciate that the results arent consistent with your bluster, but at least try and come out with a reasoned rebuke. Its wrong bubble blowing wont change the simple result: the available empirical evidence, without doubt, proves that your original statement is nonsense. Already said: Imputed rent, by definition, refers to non-cash gains from home ownership investments. Now youre clearly ignorant of imputed rent analysis (something I find amusing as you pretend to be well read in this field), but at least google an article that you can plagiarise for proper critique I have referred to two (semi-)randomly chosen articles that show how property rents are regressive. Not quite random of course. I did ensure that they are published in academic journal. Youve responded with grunt (and Im over-estimating your efforts here!) I actually gave you one means to, with a level of maturity, question the validity of the imputed rent approach. Your response only advertises that youre not actually interested in mature critique. Try to improve on that limitation! Youre struggling to understand your own comments? Im not surprised. You came out with a nonsensical claim: "excising non-residential real estate holdings from owners' property tax burdens". The paper isolates home-owner residential property taxes. To understand regressivity of a tax we of course have to isolate that tax. Bleedin obvious really! An inane conspiracy theorist comment, just without an attempt at pretend at a logical backbone! The paper empirically tests regressivity. Your ideology is shown to be based on hot air. Nope, by referring appropriately to how the distributional effects of a specific tax can be estimated. You deliberately misrepresented what the paper did, again demonstrating that youre prepared to make bogus claim without first reading the primary source. Unfortunately that is consistent with those adopting a cultish approach Another nonsensical charge. Youve simply misrepresented the papers methodology and its multifaceted approach to regressivity analysis. You do make such silly claims. If you can show some empirical bias in the technique being employed then be my guest. We both know that you cannot. And you finish with anti-intellectualism. Whilst its expected (as youre not well read in terms of property tax analysis, or even land economics in general), it amuses me that youve made such vacuous claims over a paper that you havent perused. Ill repeat, as it destroys your comments for the nonsense that they respresent: First, on controlling for life-cycle effects, the formal incidence of rates on net wealth is clearly regressive. Net wealth dear conspiracy theorist!
That is the key to the success of Texas! They are all too happy to exploit cheap labor of hispanics, and at the same time refuse to be taxed to help their fellow members of humanity. They do not care one bit about the horrible poverty or human needs of this subservient worker class. "Private charity" is always the answer, and unsurprisingly this never seems to ammount to much.
