alt.politics.economics

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:58:47 -0500, "lysander@ "
wrote:

>royls@ wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:06:36 -0500, "lysander@ "
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy F. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your arguments would make some sense if we were talking about a tax on the
>>>> sale of land.
>>> For the 20th or more time. It does not matter. Why? Because buying the
>>> land triggers the tax.
>>
>> As usual, you are just lying garbage. The tax is the same whether the
>> land is transferred or not.
>>
>> Everything you say is a lie, because you are pure, lying garbage.
>
>Roy still doesn't understand ONE simple concept. We are talking about
>demand here.

Because you have been conclusively refuted on the subject of supply.

>Demand deals with buyers.
>Supply deals with sellers.

Buyers and sellers of land are presumed to have the same reason for
wanting to own it: the rent.

>The point here is that the effect on DEMAND is the same as a sales tax.

Even if that were true, which it isn't (because different potential
buyers have different expectations of future rents), it would be
irrelevant.

>Pure and simple. Roy does not understand the economic way of thinking.

ROTFL!! This, from the guy who still thinks an offer declined is a
price.

>>> If I do not buy the land I do pay the tax.
>>
>> Inevitably, that is the exact opposite of the truth.
>
>Really if I own no land I pay land taxes?

That's what you said. Now you want me to provide some sort of
argument for why you are not flat wrong, as usual?

>Wait didn't you claim land
>taxes were borne solely by land owners and could not be shifted.

Correct. That is a fact of economics that has been known, and not
seriously disputed by any competent economist, for nearly 200 years.

>Roy has
>gotten so used to saying I am lying he isn't even reading the statements
>anymore.

No, I read and understand your statements, and they are lies.

>>> By buying the land I incur a tax liability.
>>
>> No, you merely _assume_ a tax liability that was previously someone
>> else's.
>
>Which is why Demand shifts Roy. I don't care if it was someone else's
>liability or if it is a new tax scheme. Buying the land means I pay the tax.

But that will have different effects on different potential buyers who
anticipate different discounted future after-tax rents, stupid.

>>_UN_like the case of a sales tax, which does not exist until
>> the item is sold.
>
>Which does not matter for DEMAND. It is only what taxes will this action
>trigger.
>
>Roy does not realize here that I am talking solely about the effects on
>the demand curve. The rest of the argument deals with why supply will
>not shift the same amount as demand after the tax. We are not there yet.

And never will be.

>So far this is a statement about demand alone and not the end effects of
>supply and demand. To know what happens to supply and demand we must
>have information on what happens to the supply curve and what happens to
>the demand curve.

The only thing _you_ need information for is to say the opposite.

>>> A tax on ownership of the property is no different than a tax on the
>>> sale of the property to a potential buyer.
>>
>> Refuted above. Inevitably.
>
>READ TO THE POTETNTIAL BUYER. AGAIN TO THE POTENTIAL BUYER.

And now you falsely and stupidly claim that all potential
buyers expect the same discounted future after-tax rents.

>>> If you have $1500 a month to spend on mortgage
>>> would you buy the land that will cost $1500 if by doing so you are taxed
>>> an ADDITIONAL $200 a month? Of course not. The land value tax affects
>>> demand.
>>
>> No, unlike a sales tax it only affects how much sellers can get for
>> the land, not how much buyers are willing to pay.
>
>Roy I am just flabbergasted at this stupid. You are honestly arguing
>that the tax you pay if you buy a property will not affect how much you
>are willing to pay for a property.

Correct. How much you are willing to pay for land is determined by
the rents you anticipate being able to pocket for doing nothing. It
does not matter to the buyer if he pays the seller or the government,
or how the payment might be divided between the two. The total amount
he is willing to pay for the land is the same.

>This is beyond stupidity. This
>doesn't even take knowledge of economics to figure out we will not pay
>as much for something if buying means we have to pay a tax.

The total amount we are willing to pay is unaffected by how it
is divided between the seller and the government.

>>> Owners realize they have a tax liability that must be paid from
>>> owning. They adjust their willingness to pay for the land downward.
>>
>> Likewise their willingness to hold out for the previous market price
>> from prospective buyers.
>
>Demand Roy. Do you understand demand is the buyer's side?

You were talking about owners above, you stupid, ignorant, despicable,
lying sack of $#!+.

>>> So
>>> if my value on the land is $200,000 before tax I will adjust down what I
>>> will pay by the present value of taxes because that increases the FINAL
>>> PRICE I PAY. Just like a sales tax which taxes you one time up front.
>>
>> Right. Just as the current owner will adjust downward the price he
>> will ask for it by the same amount.
>
>I never said he would not Roy. THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT DEMAND. Which
>you stupidly said was not affected by the LVT and now saying that the
>willingness to pay will be affected. Sorry Roy but lower willingness to
>pay is SHIFTING DEMAND!

You refuse to know the fact that what a buyer is willing to
pay for land is unaffected by how his payment will be divided between
the seller and the government.

>>> Lets make this a real simple 1 time unit tax for ownership you will pay
>>> once versus a unit sales tax. This is for simplicity it works with
>>> perpetual taxes as well.
>>
>> Wrong. A sales tax is only incurred on transfer. A perpetual tax
>> must be paid anyway, transfer or no transfer.
>
>Must be paid by someone yes. However, to the buyer buying the land means
>he pays it just like a sales tax. HE ONLY PAYS THE TAX IF AGREES TO A
>TRANSACTION. TO THE BUYER, NOTE BUYER, THIS IS JUST LIKE A SALES TAX.

But it will affect different potential buyers differently, depending
on the rents they anticipate being able to pocket in return for making
no contribution to production.

>Roy are you really this dense or do you just think you have make
>comments on everything I say even if the comment is stupid?

I agree it is a waste of time to correct all your errors, as you never
learn anything anyway.

-- Roy L