alt.politics.economics

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:44:15 -0500, "lysander@ "
wrote:

>royls@ wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:46:44 -0500, "lysander@ "
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy F. wrote:
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> You're still foolishly trying to pretend that a property tax is a sales tax.
>>>> In fact, the price paid by the buyer is the same as the price received by
>>>> the seller.
>>> You are still foolishly trying to pretend that a LVT does not affect our
>>> decision to buy.
>>
>> Nobody claims that, stupid, ignorant, lying garbage.
>
>Of course he did. He is trying to argue the LVT does not affect Demand.

"Decision to buy" is not at all the same thing as "demand,"
lying filth, as you would know very well if you were willing to know
anything whatever. LVT shifts the demand curve leftward, but leaves
the decision to buy unaffected (ignoring indirect effects, transaction
costs, etc.), because it commensurately reduces the rent the buyer can
expect to pocket for doing nothing.

>>> You have not and can not refute the logic that if you
>>> are charged $500 at POS or $500 six months after the sale you still have
>>> to $500 BECAUSE you purchased the property.
>>
>> The sales tax occurs once, stupid, for each time the property is sold,
>> stupid. The land tax occurs over and over again, stupid, whether the
>> property is sold or not, stupid.
>
>Roy doesn't understand present value either. If the tax occurs once or
>every year makes no difference. The point is buying the land TRIGGERS
>THE TAX.

That is the same lie you have told repeatedly, stupid. With a land
tax, stupid, buying the land DOES NOT trigger the tax, stupid, because
the tax is owed by the land's owner in any case, stupid. With a sales
tax, stupid, there is no tax if there is no sale, stupid. That is the
point, stupid, which you just deny and deny and deny.

Stupid.

>I made a simplifying assumption.

No, you lied again.

>In if you look at an annual
>tax then the Present Value of FUTURE taxes paid because you buy are
>added to the price.

Subtracted.

__** STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! **__

>I thought you just said that the tax does effect demand now are you
>trying to argue it does not?

You again just baldly lie about what I have plainly written.

>>> This is the same effect
>>> rather it be because you bought it or because you own it. Buying it
>>> means you own it and have to pay the tax.
>>
>> Whereas if you don't buy it, stupid, the owner has to pay the tax,
>> stupid. Which makes the land tax TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM a sales tax.
>
>Not in the face of the buyer.

You are stupid. A sales tax is over and done with. You are stupid.
By contrast, a land tax will rise with the land rent. You are stupid.
Therefore, a buyer who thinks the land rent will rise (and which land
buyer doesn't?) will be willing to pay more for the land with a sales
tax than with a land tax of equivalent present value. You are stupid.
For reasons which are obvious to everyone but you (because you are
stupid), a sales tax makes the land market less liquid, increasing
prices, while a land tax makes the land market more liquid, reducing
prices. You are stupid.

Indeed, in theory, a sales tax on land would halt all land sales
entirely, because the buyer has no reason to offer more than the
capitalized rent he will be able to pocket for doing nothing, and the
seller no reason to accept less. The only reason sales still occur in
reality is that buyers and sellers disagree on the present value of
the future rents they will be able to pocket in return for doing
nothing.

>IT STILL AFFECTS DEMAND. You don't follow
>discussions well. Do you?

I follow discussions extremely well. I just don't follow irrational
idiocy very well. But I've been getting a lot of practise lately, so
there is still hope.

>At this point the discussion is focused on a
>small part of the issue how demand will shift with the tax. The other
>part is how supply shifts and how if shifting of the tax can occur then
>the supply curve does NOT shift by the amount of the less but less than
>the tax.

More irrational idiocy.

>>> So why do think a sales tax and a LVT are different? Let me guess
>>> because they are?
>>
>> Of course they are, stupid. They are radically different, stupid.
>> You just refuse to know that fact, stupid, because it proves that
>> everything you have ever said or ever will say is wrong.
>
>Here we are again. "Of course they are, stupid" is not an argument. To
>the buyer there is no difference in sales or LVT tax.

Only if the buyer thinks there is no difference in the present value
of the ultimate cost.

>THEY BOTH AFFECT DEMAND IN THE SAME WAY.

As above.

>>> Feldstein shows how if the tax can be passed
>>
>> Which it can't, stupid.
>
>On the contrary, Feldstein shows exactly how the LVT can be shifted to
>owners of capital and those who use labor.

Lie. A change in economic conditions resulting from a tax is not
burden shifting, as I already proved to you by the example of alcohol
taxation.

Why can't you remember from one post to the next that I have already
refuted all your claims?

>The LVT not be able to shift to renters rest on an ASSUMPTION that the
>supply of land for rent is perfectly inelastic.

I have already explained why it doesn't matter if the land is rented
or sold. You are just trying to sneak in another fallacy: comparison
of unlike cases.

>Something that has not been shown to hold.

Yes, it has, stupid, because it is true by definition, stupid, as I
have already explained to you multiple times, stupid.

>>> If I buy the land and I have a $500 liability for buying it then I spend
>>> price + $500.
>>
>> No, it depends on the elasticity, stupid.
>
>No it does not. It is very simple. I buy the land therefore I incur a
>$500 tax.

But the burden is the seller's. As the land rent you will be able to
pocket in return for zero contribution to production is unchanged, you
are just willing to pay $500 less for the land.

>Where you are confused is by the incidence as opposed to the
>statutory burden. I pay $500 more than market price. That does not mean
>the incidence is $500. It means I pay $500 more than the market price
>after the tax.

Which is $500 less than before the tax.

Stupid.

>Elasticity determines the incidence, how much I pay in
>market price + tax - OLD market price. The statutory burden will cause
>demand to shift EVEN IF THE SUPPLIERS ABSORB IT ALL. If demand or supply
>didn't shift price would not change.

Supply is vertical, so price is reduced by $500 by the equivalent
shift of the demand curve.

>> Of course it does, stupid. With a sales tax, stupid, the owner has no
>> tax liabiity if he doesn't sell, stupid.
>
>The discussion is terms of demand NOT supply Roy. You really should read
>CAREFULLY before you interject. I have not said there is a 0 possibility
>of effect on supply. I am just trying to show Andy why demand is effected.

And failing miserably, as usual.

> >With the land tax, stupid,
>> he does, stupid.
>
>Supply deals with sellers. Demand deals with buyers. Until you get this
>concept down your chance at any understanding of economics is hopeless.

The buyer has no reason to change his estimate of value, so any sales
tax just comes off the seller's price. Stupid.

>> So the price he will get is reduced by the land tax,
>> stupid, because if he doesn't sell the land, stupid, he will have to
>> pay the tax himself.
>
>Why is it reduced? Because demand shifts to the left due to the purchase
>causing a tax liability.

No, it is reduced because the owner has the tax liability whether
there is any purchase or not.

Stupid.

>>> Again I ask you have you ever bought a home or known someone who did?
>>> Did you or the person who you know ignore the property taxes that would
>>> have to be paid when making the decision?
>>
>> Of course not, stupid, and neither did the seller, stupid, which
>> proves you wrong.
>
>No it proves me right that the tax will shift the demand curve.

But not the supply curve.

-- Roy L