alt.politics.economics

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

>
>> 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.
>

Really then why I am making the same argument, well at least for the
short run? Are you really this daft?

>> 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.
>

Of course you were. You claimed that land taxes in the US were
efficient. Land taxes in the US tax improved and unimproved value. I am
also pointing out that just because in the short run an unimproved value
tax does not effect improvements, it may in the long run. Secondly that
the only way that the tax can be seen as efficient in the land market,
not the market for improvements, is if the elasticity of supply is
exactly zero.

>>> 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.
>

Quite the contrary. If you had studied economics you would understand
efficiency is defined as total surplus in the market being maximized.
You would understand this definition does not allow for degrees of
efficency. Pick up a microeconomic textbook and read. Just because
economist do not use the home made definitions that you and "The
Trucker" use does not mean we are lying.

The cold hard truth is efficiency characterizes a situation to where all
resources are put to their best use. A situation where the addition of
consumer surplus and producer surplus is maximized. You can not have
something more maximized than another. It is impossible. It is either
maximized or its not. Your lack of economic education does not make me a
liar.


>> 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.
>

It just proves I know the definition of efficency and how to apply it to
a market and you do not.

>> 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.
>

No. It depends on if you are using the correct and accepted definition
of efficiency. You and "the trucker" want to argue economics but do not
want to the speak the language of economics. You want to make up your
own terms, not define them, and expect everyone else just to accept
them. Economist use a set of terms that are well defined and agreed
upon. If you think efficiency means something else then define it when
argue that something is efficient.

So what is your definition of efficient? I am really curious to know
since you have implied you have a vast knowledge of what is in economic
textbooks.

As for me I have just taught from economic textbooks from several years
now and had to not only memorize the definitions but also understand for
7 years of taking test to earn my . Something tells if I didn't
understand efficiency correctly I would have failed a test in principles
of macro, undergraduate public finance, field courses that apply the
concept of efficency, Graduate level Micro I and Micro II, Graduate
level Macro II were efficiency was used in contexts of externalities,
industrial organization, or even development field courses. Some how I
passed all of those classes and never failed a test.

Were my professors liars because they refused to accept Roy's home made
definition that he refuses to put in print?


>> 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.

A. There is no such thing as more efficient. Less deadweight loss perhaps.

B. No categorial statement can be made such as this because there is no
criteria for what size the tax is. Does a 100% tax on the unimproved
value of land yield a smaller dead weight loss than a 1% tax on income?
Does it yield a smaller dead weight loss than a 5% sales tax. That is
why it is an empirical question that takes more than talking it out.

C. THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING THAT LAND TAXES HAVE A DEADWEIGHT LOSS AND
THEREFORE ARE NOT EFFICIENT. If by more efficient you mean smaller
deadweight loss which is what you have implied in your response then you
are admitting that land taxes have some dead weight loss perhaps just
less than others.

I recall my initial statement paraphrased for those who do not
understand what efficiency means. A tax on the unimproved value of land
carries a dead weight loss. Albeit possibly a smaller dead weight loss
than other taxes.

You see Roy I never argued anything that much different from you. I
simply pointed out you were using the term efficiency wrong. There are
no degrees of efficiency. Either a market outcome maximizes total
surplus or it does not. There can be a smaller dead weight in tax A vs.
tax B. That does not make tax A more efficient because the fact that a
dead weight loss exist means tax A is not efficient.

Your original claim was that land taxes on unimproved and improved value
were efficient. You changed that argument when I showed it was wrong to
they are more efficient. I pointed out there is no such thing and now
you are trying to have a pissing contest over definitions. You are
showing that you are extremely ill equipped to argue over definitions.
If you had really studying modern economist there would be no debate
over a definition.

This is why people do not like economist or scientist in general. They
want to make claims using terms incorrectly then someone who understands
what the term means points out they are using the term wrong and the
wrong use of the term shows a misunderstanding of the concept. Instead
of trying to learn from the experience and perhaps read some economic
textbooks to confirm that Roy beleives he is high priest Roy who is not
only the decider and keeper of morals but he is also omnipotent and can
not be wrong. Therefore his definition must be correct and anyone who
says differently is damned by High Priest Roy and called a heretical liar.


>
>>> 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.
>

Proof? Want to cite some evidence? How about a study on homeownership
that supports your conclusion?

Here I can cite wrong that shows that you are wrong.
/snapshot_comparisons/income_variables/
Look at the table % percent of their clients with 0 income own a
place to live. 19% of clients in the 76%-100% of the poverty line range
own a home. Are you ready to admit you are pulling rabbits out of your
hat yet?


There are people below the poverty line that own land and homes. You
don't have to drive far from where I live to see that. There are many
near the poverty line that own homes. Granted some of this is through
HUD but it happens.