Would you accept a tax hike if it meant higher taxes on the rich?

Nothing worth a reply.

 

Yes, wrong. The two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of taxation policy are "ability to pay" and "beneficiary pay." The other considerations of convenience, certainty, etc. that you identified are not as basic or universally correct.

Because they don't understand the real problem, they have no idea what the real solution is.

Oh, I have. They are neoclassical apologists for the greed, privilege, and parasitism of the super-duper uber-rich. They just realize they have to do something to make it tolerable.

 

You have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

 

It also has nothing to do with consuming goods and services in other countries. Too bad you couldn't think of anything relevant to say.

No, WRONG.

And if you go out even farther from publicly created location advantage, it's $1000/month, or even less. Proving you wrong.

You mean $1K more than for some other, less advantageous location, which is $500 more than for some still less advantageous one. It's all rent, all the way down to the locations that aren't worth anything. Proving you wrong.

Wrong. The $10K is also largely economic rent, as the owner would take less than that to avoid leaving the space vacant.

​

That one is right: land rent is any additional value conferred by location, not just the difference between a downtown location and a suburban one. Proving you wrong.

No. You know almost nothing about taxation economics and are not an economist. Teaching a high school class in economics because your principal couldn't find anyone on the staff who knew any economics to teach the class does not make you an economist, sorry.

<yawn> I've proved you are the one who doesn't understand it. You have also been completely unable to answer a simple question about tax incidence, even when the answer is easily Googled.

Which you apparently neither read nor understood.

I already made my point: you have admitted that you know nothing about tax incidence, nor the difference between a rent payment for temporary use of another's property and economic rent.

We were talking about investors, not business. Stop trying to change the subject every time I prove you wrong.

While investors prefer not having to compete.

It won't melt, and any methane released would have almost no effect on temperature even if it did. Take it to the bank.

No, it is pretty much just privilege, which is the elephant in the room that you can't see.

See? You don't even understand how privilege works: it is privilege that stops people from accessing the economic opportunities and advantages technological progress offers unless they pay the privileged full market value just for permission to do so.

Read "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George (it's available for free on the Internet) and try to at least minimally inform yourself of the relevant facts.

No, I am the one who is being honest by sticking to the subject: consumption.

But without income tax, no legal basis to do so.

Ensuring that they renounce their citizenship, as it would provide them with costly obligations but no benefits.

IOW, proving you wrong again.

That is certainly what it looks like. Was it some kind of private religious high school where biology students learned about creation instead of evolution?

<yawn>

See? You simply made that up. No one disputes that climate has always changed, and that there is nothing we can do to stop it from changing. The hoax is the proved-false hypothesis that climate change is driven by changes in atmospheric CO2.

I am content to continue being proved right on the anti-fossil-fuel hoax.

 

You have utterly failed to explain and defend your positions. You remind me of the hacks who work as economists for labor unions and Mises. So, go ahead all tell us about the Labor Theory of Value and MMT.

 

You don't live in the real world if you think "beneficiary pay" is accepted by liberals.

 

The FBAR is an extension of U.S, power over its citizens living abroad. It can go from bank accounts to a more comprehensive look at other assets. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of computers you would grasp the possibilities.

The transit and many of the other public amenities didn't exist when he purchased the unit. He has captured the "privilege" as higher property rent.

Oh, please. He has "privilege" provided by the City of Vancouver and province of British Columbia.

You're full of it. Even someone with little background in economics can see how my pal acquired "privilege" conferred by government.

If you have a point to make, you'll have to do it without my help.

Just enough to establish you're wrong. That which appears as simply property rent can include economic rent. I owned a business in a high income area where we were the only auto repair service beyond a gas station that could opened. Zoning. Privilege plus. I ended up with enough money when I got out I could afford to do what I really wanted to do-—teach school—without caring about the salary.

Permafrost is thawing.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-worse-will-thawing-arctic-permafrost-make-climate-change/

My auto repair business.

It was written 150 years ago.

Yeah, sure--climate change is a hoax. Good grief.

 

It is accepted by economists. Liberals might -- like you? -- be too innocent of economics to understand the difference between user pay -- which is a favorite of know-nothing conservatives -- and beneficiary pay. The beneficiaries of desirable public services and infrastructure are not the nominal users, but landowners (Google "Henry George Theorem").

 

No, you just can't understand the explanations and proofs that I have given, because you do not know enough economics.

Wrong again. I have lots of experience demolishing both.

Stanley Jevons (a pioneering 19th century neoclassical economist, so you have no doubt never heard of him) refuted the Labor Theory of Value over 150 years ago, effectively ending classical economics as an intellectual force. MMT has a mostly correct understanding of the mechanics of the debt money system (which most neoclassical economists do not), but goes off the rails with its radical chartalism (you could look that up, too) and inane policy prescriptions like the job guarantee.

 

It was absurd on its face. As far as your assessment of what is or isn't an intellectual force, that's a question for historians.

Arguably untrue given the consequence of employing MMT.

Relevance?

Fair enough, I suppose. Leftwing pols tempted by the promise of unrestrained spending are unconcerned with framing the unfolding opportunity they see.

Inane and demagogic. Demonstrating MMR advocates are far more concerned with short-term politics than providing a stable financial system.

 

I suppose Marxism, which was based on classical economics's Labor Theory of Value but erased the classical distinction between capital and land, was the other dagger thrust that ended classical economics as an intellectual force.

MMT (MMR is a vaccine). IMO MMT advocates have, in pursuit of relevance through political influence, allowed themselves to be hypnotized by what amounts to an accounting sleight-of-hand.

 

Marxism didn't help.

Oh, it's more cynical than that. They know instinctively that MMT is inflationary, especially if they try to guarantee jobs for everyone. They just want to put their giveaway programs in place, figuring future reactionary governments won't end them.

 

Based on legal authority conferred by the Income Tax Act, which you would abolish.

As you are evidently having a little trouble understanding some basic economic concepts, I repeat: consumption is not an asset.

And perhaps if you understood the difference between an income tax and a consumption tax, you would grasp the fact that consumption taxes cannot tax people's consumption in other jurisdictions.

Sure they did. They created the location value.

All location value is based on expected economic rent and represents privilege, not just the premium of downtown urban locations or the increased premium since the time of purchase.

And less directly, by the federal government. Correct. Privilege (from the Latin for "private law") is always by definition conferred by law.

I am objectively correct. You are not an economist, and know only enough economics to have taught it -- incompetently, as it happens -- to some unfortunate high school students.

Indeed: he paid the previous owner for it, just as slave owners paid their slaves' previous owners for them. Too bad you couldn't think of anything relevant to say.

I have made my point: you know nothing about tax incidence, and can't even be arsed to Google it to at least minimally inform yourself on the subject.

No, I proved you wrong.

Of course; sometimes it's nothing but economic rent. I never said otherwise.

So? Most people who have substantial accumulations of wealth have obtained them through privilege. What's your point?

Just as it did in every previous natural century-scale warming period. And your point would be?

Right: even though you made a small fortune by dint of privilege, you still don't understand how it works.

And your point would be...? The fact that its analysis has never been refuted in 150 years should tell you something. By far the most important scientific work of all time, Newton's Principia Mathematica, was written more than 300 years ago. The most influential work in mathematics, Euclid's Elements, was written over 2000 years ago.

No, you simply made that up. Climate has been and is changing, obviously. It has always changed. The hoax is the claim that unlike all the previous, similar changes, this time the natural factors that caused all the previous, similar changes have somehow become inoperative, and so the only possible cause is CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use.

 

Obviously, we would need to pass enabling legislation. Egads.

Everyone is dumb but you?

Some consumption is turned into assets--houses, airplanes, yachts, vehicles, jewelry... We may not spot a consumed steak, but having to hide assets is a pain.

Deflecting from your weak understanding of computer technology? I taught accounting. Care to challenge me on that point? I have university training. Care to put your $5,000 on a claim I don't understand the difference between income and consumption taxes?

We can examine their bank accounts and match them with assets.

No, they did not exist when he purchased the property.

The additional location value is what I was talking about him capturing in rent.

No point to make?

I can't imagine you teaching anything. You wouldn't have enough time after telling everyone how smart you are.

Did you see what I highlighted in blue? I don't need you to tell me something written 150 years ago is out of copyright.

Uh oh. You're playing at being a historian, again.

 

Legislation that breaks various tax treaties with other countries. Egads indeed.

There is a difference between dumb, ignorant, and dishonest. The ignorance I can fix. The dumbness is not the dumb person's fault. It's the deliberate, relentless dishonesty I despise.

I see. So, if you buy a jet for $10M and it crashes without ever being recorded as an asset, that is zero consumption to pay tax on, but if you buy a jet for $10M, run it safely for 30 years while it gradually appreciates, then sell it for $20M, that is ~$400M in asset "consumption"...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

Personal consumption assets like jewelry, artworks, designer clothing, antique furniture, etc. are actually extremely easy to hide. The assets that are hard to hide are not consumer durables but privileges, as their existence is recorded in law.

No, exposing your non-existent understanding of taxation economics.

<yawn> Like you taught economics?? I edited a textbook on accounting.

But no understanding?

You've already proved you don't understand it by claiming that income tax discourages productive investment more than a consumption tax.

So, you figure you can examine all bank accounts maintained in every country? Oh, I'm sure that's not going to ruffle any feathers....

And your claim that examining bank accounts and assets will somehow measure people's consumption is false and absurd.

Yes they did. They gave the location its purchase value.

And you were wrong, because the base location value was also economic rent -- merely economic rent captured by the previous owner. See how that works?

I made the point. You just couldn't understand it. As usual.

I have taught a lot of things, including economics, and very successfully, thanks.

People who are smart themselves don't need to be told.

You need me to tell you almost everything.

No, just identifying relevant facts for you.

 

It would represent a change, but nothing all that drastic.

Buy it now and it shows up on FBAR if the government looks at your accounts.

Not as easily hidden as you think.

Won't back up your claim?

So, you have no idea how to use computer technology to catch up with the crooks.

I can't imagine you teaching. I've looked at your posts, commented on a few, and I'm still waiting for you to explain even basic ideas to the people you're lecturing.

You're a CPA? With nearly no knowledge of computers? Great.

You keep making up positions for me.

We have several problems to solve: the political instability occasioned the increasing return to capital relative to labor; the need to shift a significant amount of production to climate change mitigation, mostly research at this point; prepare for quantum computing, artificial intelligence and high-speed wireless putting many millions out of paid work.

Your solution? (I bet you don't have one.)

You should see the ruffled Canadian feathers with somewhere around 750,000 U.S. nationals living in Canada.

No, they would have to disclose assets and the bank accounts would be part of how we catch them hiding assets.

Depends upon how you define rent. How about the cost of the building?

Why are you wasting time on everyone around here since you're constantly telling everyone how smart you think you are?

Sure. Tell me how you would use computers to catch the crooks cheating on their FBARs?

Like when you pretend to be a historian?

 

Garbage contrary to fact.

Which won't exist with a consumption tax.

Aircraft ownership has to be registered anyway. But if you buy any small consumer item for cash in a foreign country, there is no way to track it.

GARBAGE. We already have constant tax-evasion scandals with income tax. It would indisputably be far worse trying to collect a consumption tax from foreign countries.

I already did: I proved you can't explain the incidence of income tax or a consumption tax, so you are not an economist and do not know any of the relevant taxation economics.

No, it is you who merely have no idea why "computer technology" is completely irrelevant to the legal, economic, and diplomatic barriers to imposing a consumption tax in other countries.

You can't imagine a lot of facts.

I have explained them very clearly. You just don't know enough economics to understand the explanations. For example, you do not even know what "tax incidence" is, or that it is determined by what is taxed, and how.

No more than you are an economist. The difference is, I never claimed to be a CPA, while you did claim, falsely, to be an economist.

You made that up, too.

No, I don't have to: the ones you make up for yourself are already silly enough.

None of which you understand well enough to offer feasible solutions to.

Wrong. The increasing return is to privilege, not capital. Matthew Rognlie of MIT showed that the excess return Thomas Piketty famously claimed for "capital" was in fact almost all due to the increased value of housing units owned by the rich -- i.e., the value of landowner privilege. The return to actual productive investment in producer goods -- buildings, machinery, vehicles, and other components of production systems that are produced by labor -- is small because it tends to be competed away.

Every day, the proof is renewed that there is no such need. The major need is for large-scale hydrological projects to enable adaptation to both higher and lower rainfall in each region, and those can usually be financed internally if the increased land value value they create is recovered to pay for them, instead of being given away to private landowners in return for nothing.

Quantum computing per se and high-speed wireless are not going to destroy jobs in the aggregate, as they will enable greater productivity. The rapid pace of change will mean, though, that many people will have to change careers, often more than once. But there is still plenty of work to do if we can just arrange our institutions to enable us to pay workers for their labor rather than paying the privileged for doing and contributing nothing.

The real problem is AI, especially superhuman AI (SAI), which will in the future render a rapidly increasing portion -- and eventually all -- of the population unemployable. But if people have justice -- i.e., their rights, or just compensation for the abrogation thereof -- they won't need jobs. Everyone will just be on permanent vacation, and the challenge will be to find meaning in a life where SAI can do everything better than any human.

I have already stated many times that my solution is justice, which you of course oppose -- to the extent that you even understand the word.

And that's with income tax. Trying to track their consumption would be idiotic and infeasible.

Remarkable: you still can't manage to understand the fact that assets are not consumption.

Which you don't know how to do, because you are not an economist.

Classical economics defined rent as the return to ownership of natural resources (land). Neoclassical economics defines it as a return in excess of that needed to devote a resource to its most productive use. But a valid definition of returns is based on how they are obtained, not how large they are. A better definition of economic rent is therefore a return obtained by legally depriving others of access to economic opportunity that would otherwise be accessible.

You again prove you are not an economist. The building is a durable consumption good produced by labor, which would not otherwise be accessible and therefore yields no economic rent.

You made that up. I never mention it except when people less intelligent than I claim I am not intelligent.

As I oppose income tax, I wouldn't even try. A valid tax doesn't require computers.

<yawn> There is a difference between someone who knows no history (like you), someone who knows some history (like me), and a historian. The first typically doesn't understand the difference between the latter two.