alt.politics.economics

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:36:22 -0500, professorchaos
wrote:

>royls@ wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:24:02 -0500, professorchaos
>> wrote:
>
>>> He doesn't understand the difference
>>> between taxing improvements and taxing land.
>>
>> No, stupid liar, you just need to lie about what I have plainly
>> written in order to have something to say.
>
>I have read it and you make the same mistake again in your next statement.
>
>>> The land tax in the US,
>>> well at least in Texas, taxes the improved value of the land as well as
>>> the unimproved and therefore is not efficient or progressive in any sense.
>>
>> Ah, yes, actually, it most certainly is, because most property value
>> is land value.
>
>That is not the point.

It is the point that you refuse to know, so you obfuscate, equivocate
and prevaricate in order to avoid knowing the facts that prove your
beliefs are false.

>A tax on
>improvements distorts incentives to improve the land.

You just made a true statement. Congratulations. Let's see if you
can do it again.

>If you have zero
>tax for building an office building then you will build more building
>than if you have a 10% tax on the building once built. George argues
>that I argue that.

And so do I, as everyone here but you knows, and you refuse ever to
know.

>You are arguable an indefensible position in any
>regards. You are misapplying George's arguments to a tax on improved and
>unimproved value.

No, stupid, I am not.

>> The property tax in Texas is quite a bit more
>> efficient
>
>No such thing as more efficient.

Thank you for again proving that you are infinitely stupid, ignorant
and dishonest.

>You can not have 2 efficient things and say one is more
>efficient.

Thank you for again proving that you are stupid, ignorant and
dishonest.

>The lost gains from trade are 0 or they are not. Something is
>efficient or it is isn't.

LOL! That depends on what your definition of "is isn't" isn't, is, or
is isn't.

>If you mean there is a smaller dead weight
>loss you might be right but that is an empirical question. The only way
>to show that is with data.

No, stupid, it isn't. It is already known that a tax that falls
mainly on land must be more efficient than one that falls entirely on
production and consumption, like a sales tax.

>>and progressive than income tax (which IIRC TX does not
>> have, but other states and of course the federal government do).
>
>If your argument were right that the poor own no land, which is not true
>some poor people own houses and it takes a bigger percentage of their
>income to pay the note and the tax,

There are no poor people who own houses, at least not in the USA, and
if there were, the houses they own would be old and depreciated, so
the property tax would mainly just reduce the cost of acquiring the
land.

>The income tax has a negative tax component through the EIC that makes the
>income tax system much more progressive than any other tax.

No, stupid, it does not. It makes income tax very progressive within
the range where EITC applies, and it is clear that that policy has
been extremely beneficial and effective.

[stupid garbage and lies snipped]

-- Roy L