Do you believe in the free market?

[Andrew~]

Richard Dawkins, the biologist who wrote the selfish gene is a lefty who himself says that we can conceptualize beyond that genetic self interest, which as I said, has nothing to do morality or economics. There's a reason who peoples views, attitudes and behaviors vary so wildly.

And I did look it up, I still don't see how it will raise enough money without fecking everything over. People who might own land but make little money for example will be fecked over. People who make vast amounts of money but own very little land will pay practically nothing. That's not progressive, taxing various levels of income at different levels is much more progressive.

There's no such thing as 'conceptualising beyond self-interest'. Self-interest the model for behaviour of the most basic molecule in existence. 'Morals' themselves are evolutionary strategies for self-preservation.

I think you need to do more research about LVT. It's not really about taxing the size of a certain piece of land (although that would be taken into account), but the value of it. And the value of land in a given area is usually determined by outside factors - the infrastructure of the area, the kind of people who live there etc etc. It's somewhat analogous to house prices, a house in Fulham is going to be far more expensive than a house in East Ham (to use London references). Same with land, it would be a de facto progressive tax because more deprived areas would have lower land values, and therefore lower levels of taxation. A progressive tax without arbitrary income brackets set by politicians.

 

[Silva]

So you're disagreeing with the scientist you quoted?

And I know it taxes land value, that was in the first few lines. What was also there was the fact that it doesn't take into account whats on that land. People who own skyscrapers for example, would see their taxes slashed. How is that fair? Is council tax not legitimate by the way? Do you expect bin men to do it out of the kindness of their heart?

 

[Commadus]

Do some more reading about David George

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

 

[Andrew~]

The theory of gains from trade explained how countries would be able to trade those goods or services which they had an absolute or comparative advantage. So this brilliant theory why was it so so poor in reality when a country such as the USA which has a higher capital employed per worker than China was importing capital intensive goods - ergo the Leontief Paradox.

In my opinion, comparative advantage better explains microeconomic phenomena that it does the macroeconomic.

Bernanke like Greenspan is a monetarist. It's all pretty pathetic, its like using a little sticking plaster to stop an arterial bleed - they are not dealing with the real issue which is fractional reserve banking and the way it eats away at society.

I agree with all of this.

 

[Commadus]

So you're disagreeing with the scientists you quoted?

And I know it taxes land value, that was in the first few lines. What was also there was the fact that it doesn't take into account whats on that land. People who own skyscrapers for example, would see their taxes slashed. How is that fair? Is council tax not legitimate by the way? Do you expect bin men to do it out of the kindness of their heart?

Why would people who own skyscrapers see their taxes slashed?

 

[Silva]

Why would people who own skyscrapers see their taxes slashed?

Land tax only take into account the value of the land, nothing more, unless that section was badly written.

 

[Commadus]

In my opinion, comparative advantage better explains microeconomic phenomena that it does the macroeconomic.
.

Please expand.

 

[Andrew~]

So you're disagreeing with the scientists you quoted?

And I know it taxes land value, that was in the first few lines. What was also there was the fact that it doesn't take into account whats on that land. People who own skyscrapers for example, would see their taxes slashed. How is that fair? Is council tax not legitimate by the way? Do you expect bin men to do it out of the kindness of their heart?

I didn't quote Richard Dawkins, merely mentioned him as part of the scientific progression towards realising that self-interest is the model for human behaviour. So yes, if he said something that I think is wrong, I'm allowed to disagree with him.

And yes, the point is that it doesn't take any improvements into account. Everyone would get their taxes slashed. And yes, council tax is not an efficient tax - and why can't bin men be paid directly anyway? You make it seem like people are going to stop paying for things they need unless there is someone to force them to do it.

 

[Commadus]

Land tax only take into account the value of the land, nothing more, unless that section was badly written.

What you do on the land is upto you but if the value of the land is more expensive as it would be in central london with a skyscraper on it then its taxed accordingly.

It is not a tax on productivity.

A simple example there are two plots of land next to each other, owned by person A and person B. Person A invests and builds a mall. The value of person B land has gone up without him doing anything he has free ridden off person A. If however there was a land tax person B would be paying no matter person A would be doing and it would incentivise better use of the land other than wait for someone to invest and watch the value of my land go up - this then encourages hording of land.

Read about Professor Michael Hudson.

 

[Andrew~]

Do some more reading about David George

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

Yeah, I've read some chapters from his [very long] monograph - Progress & Poverty. It's pretty interesting but I learned of the LVT through other means.

Please expand.​

​

This is somewhat convoluted 'cos I'm still thinking about it but, my opinion is that you can only apply it to individual economic actors because they can control their actions and act on information more efficiently. Abstracting that to countries leaves out too many variables and leads to contradictory results.​

That probably doesn't make much sense, but like I said I'm still formulating this opinion! ​

 

[Commadus]

Yeah, I've read some chapters from his [very long] monograph - Progress & Poverty. It's pretty interesting but I learned of the LVT through other means.

​

This is somewhat convoluted 'cos I'm still thinking about it but, my opinion is that you can only apply it to individual economic actors because they can control their actions and act on information more efficiently. Abstracting that to countries leaves out too many variables and leads to contradictory results.​

That probably doesn't make much sense, but like I said I'm still formulating this opinion! ​

I am trying to follow where you are coming from. Looking at gains from trading / buying / selling at the micro economic level perhaps you are looking at specilisation / division of labour. So this has already been analysed.

But if we aggregate the actions of economic actors within a country and look at international trade then the Leontief paradox becomes apparent.

So are you arguing that we cannot have a leontief paradox type situation at the micro level?

 

[Andrew~]

I am trying to follow where you are coming from. Looking at gains from trading / buying / selling at the micro economic level perhaps you are looking at specilisation / division of labour. So this has already been analysed.

But if we aggregate the actions of economic actors within a country and look at international trade then the Leontief paradox becomes apparent.

So are you arguing that we cannot have a leontief paradox type situation at the micro level?

Yes. You are better at explaining what I'm trying to say than me!

 

[Commadus]

Yes. You are better at explaining what I'm trying to say than me!

 

[Silva]

I didn't quote Richard Dawkins, merely mentioned him as part of the scientific progression towards realising that self-interest is the model for human behaviour. So yes, if he said something that I think is wrong, I'm allowed to disagree with him.

And yes, the point is that it doesn't take any improvements into account. Everyone would get their taxes slashed. And yes, council tax is not an efficient tax - and why can't bin men be paid directly anyway? You make it seem like people are going to stop paying for things they need unless there is someone to force them to do it.

You mentioned the selfish gene, there might be an evolutionary reason for us wanting humanity to succeed, but that doesn't stop people from being cnuts. And the selfish gene isn't a literal thing. You misquoted the concept and I was calling you on it.

We're already running at a massive deficit, to think that slashing taxes will fix anything is absurd. For some services yes, people need to be forced to pay. What do you think will happen with the neighbors of yours who don't pay the binman directly? Their rubbish will pile up and up until they dump it somewhere illegally. I don't want to live in that kind of country.

What you do on the land is upto you but if the value of the land is more expensive as it would be in central london with a skyscraper on it then its taxed accordingly.

It is not a tax on productivity.

A simple example there are two plots of land next to each other, owned by person A and person B. Person A invests and builds a mall. The value of person B land has gone up without him doing anything he has free ridden off person A. If however there was a land tax person B would be paying no matter person A would be doing and it would incentivise better use of the land other than wait for someone to invest and watch the value of my land go up - this then encourages hording of land.


Read about Professor Michael Hudson.

What happens to land owners who have no money to pay the tax?

 

[JakeC]

Can you ever have a truly free market? Is it not either a)the Government regulating it or b)a non statutory body eventually managed to get a monopoly? Surely promoting a 'free' market would mean you can't stop monopolies from forming?

 

[Commadus]

You mentioned the selfish gene, there might be an evolutionary reason for us wanting humanity to succeed, but that doesn't stop people from being cnuts. And the selfish gene isn't a literal thing. You misquoted the concept and I was calling you on it.

We're already running at a massive deficit, to think that slashing taxes will fix anything is absurd. For some services yes, people need to be forced to pay. What do you think will happen with the neighbors of yours who don't pay the binman directly? Their rubbish will pile up and up until they dump it somewhere illegally. I don't want to live in that kind of country.


What happens to land owners who have no money to pay the tax?

What happens now to people who cannot pay their tax liability today ? They sell their assets, come to a payment arrangement or declare Bankruptcy.

I really don't see your point. Are you saying a land tax is unfair or regressive?

 

[Commadus]

Can you ever have a truly free market? Is it not either a)the Government regulating it or b)a non statutory body eventually managed to get a monopoly? Surely promoting a 'free' market would mean you can't stop monopolies from forming?

The term free market is just a political soundbite.

 

[Silva]

What happens now to people who cannot pay their tax liability today ? They sell their assets, come to a payment arrangement or declare Bankruptcy.

I really don't see your point. Are you saying a land tax is unfair or regressive?

No, I was just asking out of curiosity. I'm not against the land tax out of principle at all, I do disagree with Andrew that it's the only legitimate tax though.

 

[Jippy]

There's nothing like a tax debate to liven up a Sunday evening.

 

[Andrew~]

You mentioned the selfish gene, there might be an evolutionary reason for us wanting humanity to succeed, but that doesn't stop people from being cnuts. And the selfish gene isn't a literal thing. You misquoted the concept and I was calling you on it.

We're already running at a massive deficit, to think that slashing taxes will fix anything is absurd. For some services yes, people need to be forced to pay. What do you think will happen with the neighbors of yours who don't pay the binman directly? Their rubbish will pile up and up until they dump it somewhere illegally. I don't want to live in that kind of country.

Who said the 'selfish gene' is a literal thing? I merely mentioned the book. For the last time, people act out of self-interest; sometimes they internalise that and are selfish, or 'cnuts' as out put it, and sometimes they externalise that and act for the betterment of society. Let me explain slightly better, most social interactions are versions of the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' - a non-corporative game with several strategies, some in which involve screwing each other over and some which don't. Which is the most efficient strategy rather depends on whether the actors in the game internalise or externalise their self-interest. But whichever strategy they choose is irrelevant, they are expressions of self-interest. You can say you're calling me on 'misquoting a concept', but to be honest you are as far off the mark on this one as it's possible to get.

Ha, so having high tax rates has somehow stopped us from having massive deficits? People dumping rubbish happens in the current system anyway, so I have no idea why you think that would be unique to what I'm advocating. The truth is that the people who dump their rubbish in random places are such a statistical outlier that they really don't matter.

 

[Andrew~]

Can you ever have a truly free market? Is it not either a)the Government regulating it or b)a non statutory body eventually managed to get a monopoly? Surely promoting a 'free' market would mean you can't stop monopolies from forming?

There are only two kinds of monopolies: government created ones, and natural monopolies. Natural monopolies are time-sensitive. This means that while in the short to medium term, they can control a given natural resource, they will, in the long term, face competition from other international providers. That is, if the government does not give that company a legal monopoly on the provision of that resource - which they often do.

I've always found it quite odd when people argue that government, which itself is a monopolistic actor, should be used to prevent monopolies from forming. There have pretty much never been any actual monopolies formed without the government's help.

 

[Andrew~]

No, I was just asking out of curiosity. I'm not against the land tax out of principle at all, I do disagree with Andrew that it's the only legitimate tax though.

Income taxes are cumbersome and expensive to administer, and they negatively affect the behaviour of people. They disproportionately fall on the middle to lower income earners because the people with real money can afford to evade them. Sales taxes and VAT also disproportionately affect people on lower incomes because they have to make their money go further. Council tax is just a crap version of the land-value tax.

The land-tax is the only legitimate tax because it is the most efficient.

 

[Commadus]

Income taxes are cumbersome and expensive to administer, and they negatively affect the behaviour of people. They disproportionately fall on the middle to lower income earners because the people with real money can afford to evade them. Sales taxes and VAT also disproportionately affect people on lower incomes because they have to make their money go further. Council tax is just a crap version of the land-value tax.

The land-tax is the only legitimate tax because it is the most efficient.

I've always wondered if a Land Tax could replace all other taxes. It will never happen in the UK as it makes too much sense and the powerful cabal of rich businessmen and landowners won't let it.

 

[Andrew~]

I've always wondered if a Land Tax could replace all other taxes. It will never happen in the UK as it makes too much sense and the powerful cabal of rich businessmen and landowners won't let it.

In my opinion, it could well do it. But as you say, there are too many vested interests for it to happen. There was actually an attempt to introduce it in 1909 which caused a massive constitutional crisis because there was so much opposition from the House of Lords - back when it still had equal legislative power with the House of Commons. The now infamous 'People's Budget' by David Lloyd George.

 

[adexkola]

You'd think the collapse of the Soviet Union never happened reading this thread.

Wealth and capital productivity, both tangible and intangible, have increased almost exponentially under free markets. Without oversight, an imperfect system will distribute the generated wealth imperfectly, and wealth excesses (think the Carnegies and Rockefellers of the Gilded era) occur, so some oversight and regulation is needed to distribute wealth more fairly.

But yeah, I believe in an ideal free market.

 

[Silva]

Would the Land Tax really be a good idea in the UK, considering how relatively small the country is? How much money would it bring in?

 

[Silva]

Who said the 'selfish gene' is a literal thing? I merely mentioned the book. For the last time, people act out of self-interest; sometimes they internalise that and are selfish, or 'cnuts' as out put it, and sometimes they externalise that and act for the betterment of society. Let me explain slightly better, most social interactions are versions of the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' - a non-corporative game with several strategies, some in which involve screwing each other over and some which don't. Which is the most efficient strategy rather depends on whether the actors in the game internalise or externalise their self-interest. But whichever strategy they choose is irrelevant, they are expressions of self-interest. You can say you're calling me on 'misquoting a concept', but to be honest you are as far off the mark on this one as it's possible to get.

Ha, so having high tax rates has somehow stopped us from having massive deficits? People dumping rubbish happens in the current system anyway, so I have no idea why you think that would be unique to what I'm advocating. The truth is that the people who dump their rubbish in random places are such a statistical outlier that they really don't matter.

The law should regulate against people being cnuts as much as is possible. I don't see how that's acceptable in your eyes.

That's irrelevant, a lot of corporations take part in tax avoidance, if the law was better the deficit would easily be removed. And if the council tax was replaced with a direct payment service for binmen, a lot more people wouldn't pay for it. Student, for example, wouldn't buy the service, do you think a private enterprise would do it for free?

 

[Andrew~]

Would the Land Tax really be a good idea in the UK, considering how relatively small the country is? How much money would it bring in?

The size of the country wouldn't matter because land values in the UK exceed those in most places but a very large margin. So it would bring in a lot. I couldn't find any projections online, but this (http://www.landvaluetax.org/) website has loads of articles about.

The law should regulate against people being cnuts as much as is possible. I don't see how that's acceptable in your eyes.

That's irrelevant, a lot of corporations take part in tax avoidance, if the law was better the deficit would easily be removed. And if the council tax was replaced with a direct payment service for binmen, a lot more people wouldn't pay for it. Student, for example, wouldn't buy the service, do you think a private enterprise would do it for free?

​

I really don't understand you. You go from believing that people are altruistic and nice to thinking the vast majority of them are dirty cnuts who would rather roll around in the own filth then dump it in your yard instead of paying a pittance to binmen.

No amount of taxation would pay for the deficit because people want the government to do more than it is capable of. Wars, the NHS, benefits, roads, trains, universities, schools, pensions and regulations of all sorts. Even if we had tax rates higher than France and everyone in the country 'paid their share', we wouldn't even dent the amount of debt UK Plc is under. In fact, we'd probably be in a much worse situation.

 

[Silva]

I've always thought people are a combination of altruistic, cnuts and the plethora of thing in between, how has that not been evident in this thread? We wouldn't need laws against murder and rape if everyone was nice.

How would we be in an even worse situation? Is there any evidence of that? When massive corporations are paying lower tax rates than small to medium businesses something is clearly wrong with the tax code.

 

[adexkola]

Would this hypothetical land tax be levied on all land, regardless of the income said land is generating?

 

[nimic]

the NHS, benefits, roads, trains, universities, schools, pensions

Yeah, how dare people want their governments to deal with roads, or schools. Clearly, even though the vast majority of people want government to, and even though civilizations have handled those since about the birth of Jesus, that's just a pipe dream.

Libertarians really do live in a fantasy world.

 

[Andrew~]

I've always thought people are a combination of altruistic, cnuts and the plethora of thing in between, how has that not been evident in this thread? We wouldn't need laws against murder and rape if everyone was nice.

How would we be in an even worse situation? Is there any evidence of that? When massive corporations are paying lower tax rates than small to medium businesses something is clearly wrong with the tax code.

Well, you need to have a more enlightened view of human behaviour. People are self-interested, and therefore respond to incentives. Which brings me to your next point on murder and rape laws; these laws have existed a long time and have had no effect on murder rates. Not because they are bad laws, but because most of the time, the incentive for a person to kill or rape is stronger than the disincentive of punishment. Economic development has done more to reduce the amount of murders and rapes than laws have. Economically deprived areas produce more people with mental disorders and malnourished/ill-developed brains and thus you are more likely to see higher murder and rape rates in those areas.
We would be worse because, ceteris paribus, higher income tax rates restrict the taxable base and create a stronger incentive for the rich to move capital (and France is a good example of this). Corporations will never pay high tax rates, they can move around much easier than small to medium size businesses, and they have access to better legal representation, and they have far better access to politicians. There definitely is something wrong with the tax code, hence why I've been mentioning the LVT.

 

[Silva]

So you think Apple and Google would contribute more to the tax pot if we had the Land Tax. Yeah, right.

The tax code undeniably needs to be fixed, but that doesn't mean we just do away with everything. That's many steps in the wrong direction.

 

[Rowem]

Who said the 'selfish gene' is a literal thing? I merely mentioned the book. For the last time, people act out of self-interest; sometimes they internalise that and are selfish, or 'cnuts' as out put it, and sometimes they externalise that and act for the betterment of society. Let me explain slightly better, most social interactions are versions of the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' - a non-corporative game with several strategies, some in which involve screwing each other over and some which don't. Which is the most efficient strategy rather depends on whether the actors in the game internalise or externalise their self-interest. But whichever strategy they choose is irrelevant, they are expressions of self-interest. You can say you're calling me on 'misquoting a concept', but to be honest you are as far off the mark on this one as it's possible to get.
.

And what is your self-interest in debating whether or not morality exists in a thread about economics on an internet forum?

I tend to assume that people who bang on about morality not existing are in fact projecting their guilt onto others in order to appease their conscience. Hey, it's ok for me to take a pay cheque for being immoral because everyone else is immoral really! Deep down, even those social workers and nurses and teachers are all as self-interested as me!

 

[Andrew~]

Yeah, how dare people assume or want their governments to deal with roads, or schools. Clearly, even though the vast majority of people want government to, and even though civilizations have handled those since about the birth of Jesus, that's just a pipe dream.

Libertarians really do live in a fantasy world.

I can imagine you in 1840 going: "Yeah, how dare people assume or want their governments to allow them to own slaves. The vast majority of people want to, and civilisations have had them since the birth of Jesus."

Fantasy world indeed.

 

[Silva]

I can imagine you in 1840 going: "Yeah, how dare people assume or want their governments to allow them to own slaves. The vast majority of people want to, and civilisations have had them since the birth of Jesus."

Fantasy world indeed.

Jesus feck. You sure know how to pick apt examples.

 

[Andrew~]

And what is your self-interest in debating whether or not morality exists in a thread about economics on an internet forum?

I tend to assume that people who bang on about morality not existing are in fact projecting their guilt onto others in order to appease their conscience. Hey, it's ok for me to take a pay cheque for being immoral because everyone else is immoral really! Deep down, even those social workers and nurses and teachers are all as self-interested as me!

touche!

My 'self-interest' is probably that I like to be right. I am an incredibly conceited person who enjoys these kinds of debates, and I try my best to have the most logical viewpoint possible.

Morals exist in the same way that, for example, money exists. They are both institutions that help society function better. But do morals exist in an absolute sense, no. They are just modes of behaviour which are biologically more efficient than others, and thus they get passed on generationally and evolve with species. Social workers and teachers are self-interested, the vast majority of them don't work for free do they?

 

[Silva]

Working for free is an option many people don't have in a money driven society.

 

[Andrew~]

So you think Apple and Google would contribute more to the tax pot if we had the Land Tax. Yeah, right.

The tax code undeniably needs to be fixed, but that doesn't mean we just do away with everything. That's many steps in the wrong direction.

That's immaterial. I want people to pay far less tax than they do now, I thought that was obvious. I've given you enough reasons why other taxes need to be done away with. You've responded with giving me responses that Apple and Google should pay more tax and corporations don't pay enough without explaining any logic behind these tautologies.

Jesus feck. You sure know how to pick apt examples.

Thank you!

 

[Andrew~]

Working for free is an option many people don't have in a money driven society.

Ha. Society is driven by the desire to survive, money is a means to that end. Even teachers know that. Pontificating about impossible societies where everything is free is a waste of time. People won't do anything for nothing, it's just that simple.