The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The planned obsolescence of the public interest > Comments

The planned obsolescence of the public interest : Comments

By Karl Fitzgerald, published 12/11/2015

The benefits are profound. Land Tax is the only revenue mechanism to generate positive benefits for the economy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Aidan

> "Why not? Isn't money wealth?"
>>No.

'Nuff said. You're making a complete fool of yourself.

You’re not understanding the economic issue, which I explain for your benefit below.

>"Why is that appropriate?
>> "because of its effects" … “significant”.

All you've done is replaced the word "appropriate” with "significant". You obviously don’t understand the question.

"The real question isn't how they can say it, but how they can convince others of it."

But it's not a consensual transaction, remember? Tax by definition is a compulsory exaction. You're displaying complete confusion.

The *fact* that states exist, does not of itself give the *value* of the fair rate of tax, which you have completely failed to establish, justify or explain.

Foleo

“And what a grand idea you post in jest. If we tax the value of land 100%, land would have no price”

Thank you for turning your brain on.

So we have now established by agreement that
EITHER:
1. The proposition that land tax benefits the economy is wrong,
OR
2. There is a point at which it goes from being beneficial to being detrimental.

Your mission - should you choose to accept it - is to define that point by some objective criterion.

Both you and Aidan have obviously failed to understand the economics of what you're talking about.

To be non-gibberish, you need to provide some coherent *reason or ratio* that *applies equally to evaluating the benefit if the money were left untaxed*. Otherwise you can’t establish it’s more socially beneficial than not-tax.

I say you can’t do it. But if you can, go ahead.

All
What we have just seen here, yet again, is that all discussion of the appropriate or fair rate of tax fails because no-one, when challenged, can give any non-equivocal definition of the appropriate or fair rate of tax, *that they equally apply to evaluate the benefits of the same money untaxed*. So there is no way of knowing – by their own lights – whether it provides the net benefits that they claim for it.

Complete fail.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 13 November 2015 6:20:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine,
I'm not the one making a fool of myself YOU fail to comprehend the difference between money and wealth. It's you who does not understand the economic issue.

"All you've done is replaced the word 'appropriate' with 'significant'. You obviously don’t understand the question."
Obviously, because I thought that when you said "Why is that appropriate? Because what?", I thought you were after a brief explanation of my reasoning. I hadn't realised that you were motivated by a hatred of subjective measures so strong that you ignore all reasoning that contains them.

"But it's not a consensual transaction, remember? Tax by definition is a compulsory exaction. You're displaying complete confusion."
But in many countries, including this one, tax rates are set by democratically elected governments.

You fail to comprehend that the point at which taxation goes from being beneficial to being detrimental depends on many thousands of variables. Nobody has ever derived an adequate formula for setting all tax rates - and as many of the variables are the result of cultural factors, t's unlikely anyone ever will. The best we can do is to react to events and try to improve what we can.

But one thing we do know for sure is that some taxes are more damaging than others. And land tax has one of the lowest adverse economic effects of any tax. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

So regardless of whether our total tax rate rises, falls or stays the same, more land tax is desirable. But there are still potential adverse consequences. You can argue if you like about what rate it would need to be at for the effects of those adverse consequences to become significant. Criticising me for daring to mention that they can become significant makes you look like a stupid ideologue uninterested in the real world consequences of taxation policy. But if that's your true position then keep rabbiting on!
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 14 November 2015 2:45:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author's article necessarily assumes the concept of the appropriate or fair rate of tax. It is implicit in expressions such as "fiscal imbalance" and "the health of the public revenue raising systems".

The unspoken assumption is that tax intrinsically, automatically, necessarily confers a net benefit in the public interest, greater than would obtain from not-taxing the same money.

However this assumption is contradicted by the statement, which no-one disagrees with, that 100% tax rate would be detrimental to society.

But the problem doesn't just kick in at 100%. It inheres in every step all the way down.

As we have just seen, no-one is able to defend the concept of an appropriate or fair tax without relying on such nonsense as:
1. "money is not wealth". No attempt at justification or explanation is given for this absurd proposition.
(The fact that money *is* a medium of exchange, doesn’t mean it’s *not* wealth.)
Besides if true, it would apply to all tax, not just GST, since all tax is paid in money.
(Note to Aidan: we stopped paying tax in mead, bridgework and deerhedge a thousand years ao.)

2. The appropriate rate of tax depends on the taxpayer’s agreement.
This is just flatly incorrect.
*All* branches of government define tax as a compulsory payment.
So if you want to argue that it’s a voluntary donation, you need to take it up with them, not me. You’re arguing with the wrong person.

3. Or how about the nonsense that it’s not an appeal to absent authority, to answer *my* challenge to *you*, by telling me to consult the authority of absent economists (who JUST HAPPEN to be government dependent intellectual bodyguards?)

These arguments put up in defence of the concept of the appropriate or fair rate of tax are nothing short of pathetic. Not even the government or you believe them.

Nor is the problem that I have a “hatred” of subjective values. I never said that, and don’t believe it, so it’s a misrepresentation.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 15 November 2015 5:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After all, all values are ultimately subjective. For example, even objective values over which we apparently have no control , such as the spot price for gold, derive ultimately from the subjective values of all the people in the world on a given day who buy and sell, or abstain from buying and selling gold.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no objective criterion for demonstrating the value of gold, does it? No.

Therefore the problem is not the existence of subjective values per se. The problem is specifically that you all remain completely unable to know or determine the appropriate or fair rate of tax.

You are caught between your mid-brain, herd-bound, unthinking assumption that tax is intrinsically, automatically beneficial, and your cerebral knowledge and understanding that that statement is not true.

Notice the curious coincidence that, on examination, the premises for the concept of the appropriate or fair rate of tax , all turn out to be just a hopeless jumble of nonsense and self-contradictions, and on the other hand we JUST HAPPEN to be discussing the revenue source of the State?

And in what other field of human endeavour, would anyone dare to assert that an expenditure confers a net benefit, regardless what it was spent on, or what was sacrificed to obtain it?

Aidan in another thread even descended to the absurdity of asserting that government provides net benefit REGARDLESS OF THE COST LOL! Real comic-book stuff. “Net” means net of costs you fool.

Aidan, your last post admits that you are not capable of knowing or demonstrating the appropriate or fair rate of tax, other than by your methodology of pulling an arbitrary figure out of one's backside and expecting everyone else to hail it as strawberry jam.

It is enough for me to prove that what you’re saying is wrong, and that not even you agree with it.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 15 November 2015 5:05:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If after that, you choose to keep believing and saying what you know is untrue, I think that’s your problem not mine.

All
Therefore I have demonstrated that no-one is capable of knowing or establishing the appropriate or fair rate of tax, and no-one has been able to defend it but by embracing absurdity and self-contradiction.

Q.E.D.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 15 November 2015 5:06:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, Jardine, you have been very busy building strawmen!

Tax is, as I said, necessary to fund government spending. The alternative is anarchy (or at best, tribalism).

"The unspoken assumption is that tax intrinsically, automatically, necessarily confers a net benefit in the public interest, greater than would obtain from not-taxing the same money. However this assumption is contradicted by the statement, which no-one disagrees with, that 100% tax rate would be detrimental to society. "
But since nobody disagrees with that statement, maybe you should rethink the unspoken assumption. Rather than assuming it to be automatic and necessary, why not acknowledge that it was not assumed to apply in all conceivable circumstances; merely circumstances to what we have at present.

"But the problem doesn't just kick in at 100%. It inheres in every step all the way down."
But not proportionately. And for a 1% land tax, the ongoing problems are negligible.

Regarding my disagreement to your "money is wealth" claim, I IMMEDIATELY offered an explanation: It can also be used as a means of storing wealth, but that's not what the GST taxes.

The GST taxes spending. Spending is not wealth. Spending could be on credit.

"Besides if true, it would apply to all tax, not just GST, since all tax is paid in money."
I was merely using GST as an example; not claiming it to be the only exception.

"2. The appropriate rate of tax depends on the taxpayer’s agreement.
This is just flatly incorrect. "
Nor is it what I said. I said that in democracies it depends on the collective agreement of the voters.

"3. Or how about the nonsense that it’s not an appeal to absent authority, to answer *my* challenge to *you*, by telling me to consult the authority of absent economists (who JUST HAPPEN to be government dependent intellectual bodyguards?)"
Firstly it was foleo, not me, who told you that. Secondly as you were whinging about the lack of definitions in the article when it included links to a paper that contained them, your "absent authority" excuse is invalid IMO.

(TBC)
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 15 November 2015 10:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy