Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. Calm down everyone.

    The Conservatives are not going to win the next election and Labour will bankrupt the country AGAIN.

    As for the EU - arguing about whether we can or can't / should or shouldn't leave the EU

    is like arguing if we can or can't / should or shouldn't get into a lifeboat on the Titanic


  2. A piece of paper 'makes society richer' because it enables activity to take place which otherwise wouldn't.

    It avoids the natural collapse of demand and default.

    The powers that be like it because it 'appears' at face value to 'work' whilst avoiding the need to tackle inequality. Indeed it exacerbates it by extending it and allowing the imbalances to become even bigger.

    Why would velocity increase? I should imagine the money is spent but I should imagine velocity is constantly falling as more money continues to accumulate in fewer hands.

    Devaluation is the key reason why people will need to spend more as prices rise and in a desire to shed fiat for assets. But in order to tackle inequality properly we cannot continue to ignore the role of assets and must use tax/price adjustments to effect.

    Oh dear......


  3. Well even if everything was VAT eligible the 20% is a tax on the 50% remaining. So the total rate is 60%. Plus 50% is the marginal rate. A bloke earning 300k would STILL have a total income tax rate under 45%.

    Also if you are earning that much the vast majority of your spending will not be VAT able as it'll be on property, private school fees etc.

    Count of nowhere may say he gets taxed at 70% but i find that impossible to believe...

    You are only likely to get that high if you spend several years savings on a new car and burn swimming pools of petrol in your back garden for kicks...

    The more someone earns the more someone pays proportionally as the 10k personal allowance means someone on 20k gets half their income tax free.

    Also someone on say 20k might spend 5k on food which does not incur VAT whereas someone on 300k would spend far more of their income on things which attract VAT.


  4. Nowhere in this report could I find a single reference to the impact of technology on employment- it's not simply that they consider it and dismiss it- they just don't seem to give it a moments thought in the first place.

    I know the reason- the so called luddite fallacy that argues that productivity gains from automation will be passed on to workers in the form of lower prices which free's up more income and thus creates more jobs.

    But there is another luddite fallacy embedded in this idea- the notion that human labour will never become obsolete on a large scale. This amounts to the idea that a given applied technology will never be overtaken by better and/or cheaper applied technology.

    From the point of view of the economy human labour is just an applied technology- so if a better cheaper technology comes along the logical outcome is that human labour is replaced by that new technology.

    In this scenario the price deflation might take place but the new demand that results may itself be met by further automation rather than the creation of new jobs for humans.

    What's fascinating here is not that this might already be a factor in the unemployment picture globally -what's fascinating is that the profession engaged in trying to understand the causes of that unemployment has airbrushed out the possibility that this might be the case.

    And the reason for this is that their models are based on the past and rely on extrapolations of that past- but technology is not evolving in this way- it is evolving exponentially- and any model that makes liner projections of exponential functions is broken.

    In any case a report on employment trends that fails to even mention such apparent trivia as the impact of the internet and the increasing automation of manufacturing as possible inputs is to say the least just a little narrow in it's scope.

    Yeah but everyone knows that its Gideons evil squid bankster buddies that stole all the money.

    They've got it stashed in the giant Squid cave somewhere and when we find it everyone will be rich.

    But seriously, I admire your heroic attempts to inject some intelligent thought into the discussion

    good luck with that


  5. So why doesn't the UK attack and take everything from other countries, rather than trading with them?

    Why don't you steal stuff from others, rather than trading for them (assuming you're not a thief)?

    Why are you here debating with me, rather than beating me to a pulp and taking all of my stuff?

    War and violence are the antithesis of civilised society. Only a minority of nut cases choose violence rather than trade, which is why we are prosperous, rather than scratching an existence out of the dirt.

    Using violence against a comparable society is costly and inherently risky

    So humans naturally prefer non-violent co-operation up to the point at which non-violent co-operation becomes the more costly option.

    When the UK had a technological advantage over other human societies we were quite happy to use violence against them to further our own economic advantage

    Now we no longer have a significant technological advantage over other human societies we would rather trade with them.

    And given the hundreds of millions of humans who engaged in warfare in the 20th Century I'm not entirely sure where you got the idea that only a few nut cases are capable of using violence

    We are all capable of using violence, it is genetically pre-programmed into every living creature.

    I have never harmed anyone in my entire life, but I'm sure I would use violence to protect myself and my family, I have just never needed to do so.

    At the end of the day, there is no difference in stealing someones food and them starving or caving their heads in with a rock.


  6. There is plenty to go round just a certain section of the world is hogging the lions share. Quite a few Americans and British could take to loose a few hundred pounds in weight.

    They are not hogging the lions share, they just work smarter and harder to produce more.

    And what if the population of the US have say 1.2 kids each and give all their surplus grain production to Africa and they have 5 or 6 kids each.

    How does this end?


  7. There is plenty to go around.

    Even if there wasn't, if everyone steals from everyone else, everyone will stop creating more than they can immediately consume. It is counter productive.

    The reason that we trade peacefully, is because both parties walk away more wealthy. It is also puts both parties at low physical risk.

    Finally, humans also choose not to reproduce much, without any need for violence whatsoever. The sub-replacement fertility rate is already negative in many areas of the world and tends to decrease with prosperity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility).

    There clearly isn't plenty to go around and city states came into being so that people could defend what they created more than they could immediately consume.

    And it is pointless certain groups of humans choosing not to reproduce because all that happens is they get overrun by those who choose to carry on reproducing.

    Ultimately the meek will not inherit the Earth - those who have the most kids will inherit the Earth.


  8. You're substituting civilised society, for the state. In fact, many a state can be rather uncivilised and resort to violence without much provocation.

    I agree that violence is the final way to resolve problems, but so what? If you want to live in a civilised society, then you want to avoid violence.

    To avoid violence, you need to deter aggression in all guises. Monopolising locations is plainly an act of aggression, for those with a brain to consider it. If those displaced are not compensated, they are going to turn to violence if/when they can.

    Merely existing is plainly an act of aggression and it is not possible to compensate the human who starves because I eat.

    If I gave this other human half my food, we would both starve.

    The only way to completely eliminate violence would be to have a stable population living in an entirely stable and unchanging ecosystem.

    Again unfortunately, it is impossible to control human reproduction without using violence

    and it is also impossible to provide a stable and unchanging eco system.

    It actually now occurs to me that what you are searching for is literally the Garden of Eden.


  9. Err......

    I said "no tax creates wealth" you have somehow understood this as "tax creates wealth."

    I am not sure if it is my english or your comprehension that has failed.

    Bit of both I think. :)

    As no one really bothers with punctuation I read it as 'No, tax creates wealth' because you followed it by proposing a LVT

    Anyway, sorry about that.

    I am so used to people disagreeing with me I get confused when someone supports my viewpoint.


  10. This is chartalism - the more the state taxes people, the more some of them are forced to overproduce (up to a certain point.) taxes mostly exist to create demand for currency.

    And the taxes don't take from individuals and give it to the state, the state de facto owns everything, including the people.

    What you are describing is Socialism.

    The state owns everything, holds a gun to peoples heads to force them to produce and shoots anyone trying to escape.

    And taxes do not require coinage or paper money.

    So do you believe that taxes create wealth or not?

    I await your reply with interest.


  11. No tax creates wealth. I think a LTV would be a better and fairer way to raise tax than income tax, I do not think it should be an additional tax ontop of what we already pay. I also think the total amount of tax raised needs to be drasticly reduced and people take responsibility for themselves in most areas of their lives.


    No it doesn't.

    Taxation merely transfers wealth from individuals to the state.

    In fact taxation destroys wealth creation because the more the state takes from people, the less they produce.

    Sincerest apologies to Thomas Pain

    for once again stating the obvious.


  12. I actually look at LVT in a slightly different light.

    The common perception centres on recompense for monoploy access to and exploitation of land/location. And further it compensates people for 'improvements' in the locale being unfairly captured by undeserving landowners.

    But there is another huge element which we have been witness to since 1997 in the latest cycle. Land values rise by a multiple of credit as credit is extended into the economy and it becomes our 'money supply'. That then generates price inflation but it can never match the price inflation of assets that have multiples of credit advanced against it. (this is how we get stories of 'if chickens had risen in price by the same amount as houses, they would cost £40' type of stories).

    Indeed the price of assets versus other prices are now completely unhinged and we see all sorts of distortions to our economy and ultimately society. Rents are a strange one because on the one hand they can be seen to rise with house prices as competition in the one area of the market is reflected in the other. But ultimately, there is a limit set by rising wages...which is also in large part a result of increased money supply from lending against land to compensate for broader price changes (but importantly, not assets).

    So, a key part of 'unearned gains' is the credit advanced against land itself, which also results in rising costs in the wider economy. In theory, productivity gains should mean prices falling - as they do with ipods and the like, but we don't see that because of the costs that landowners effectively heap on us.

    (I shouldn't have to point this out, but for game over and others who like to state the bleeding obvious, clearly I have left out other causes of price rises and falls and have focused on the role of credit in the economy)

    I think the fact that the BoE and government has an inflationary bias, means that the rich steadily get richer as their assets rise faster than cash savings and incomes. Inequality is a real economic problem for capitalism. It is a key reason that left untackled, results in crises. An LVT for me, would be a key way to make sure asset holders do not inadvertently suck up the lion's share of the wealth and cause economic stagnation.

    Yes well, as I said

    If everyone understood the obvious

    I wouldn't have to keep stating it.


  13. The rental value is discovered by the market. You just observe it.

    If no one wants to farm or build on it (etc), the rental value will be zero.

    I never said it would.

    They're all just locations, so you would treat them the same, naturally.

    Even anarchists can explain what a land value tax system is supposed to achieve! ;)

    I'm just pointing out who is exploiting who and suggesting that compensation may be due. If I didn't, I wouldn't be following the non-aggression principle.

    The rental value is currently determined by the state, which determines what people are and are not allowed to do with their land.

    In the absence of a state the rental value is the amount of blood and treasure anyone is prepared to expend defending their land.

    Even then this value will change constantly depending on the level of competition for any given piece of land at any particular point in time.

    What is the rental value of a few square miles of muddy farmland in Picardy?

    Because a few years ago it was 60,000 casualties in one day

    and that is only the British figures.

    At the end of the day you only own what you are willing or able to defend and that even applies to your own life and liberty.


  14. I think you misunderstand the concept behind a LVT. It is a tax on the rental value of a location, not a tax on the amount of land used.

    The 'potential rental value' is another way of saying 'potential location exploitation possible'.

    Rents reflect the demand for a location. That is, how many people wish to occupy that location.

    Even if he isn't profiting via rent directly, he (or those before) may have gained from the land monopoly (read: HPI), increasing the potential rental value.

    You either take rent at sale time (via HPI) or you take it regularly as a direct rent. Either way, it is levying a monopoly on a location (which cannot be owned in any reasonably sense), in order to profit.

    And how exactly would you determine rental value?

    What is the rental value of land that no one wants to farm and no one is allowed to build on?

    And if you tax agricultural land, this won't raise any revenue because agriculture is already subsidised so the money would just go from government to farmer back to government

    What about land owned by the Queen, or the Church, or businesses or local authorities or the Government itself?

    And anyway, I thought you were supposed to be an Anarchist.......


  15. Take away the land monopolisiation. (The benefits won't ever be turned into a citizens wage, the cash will get to someone like Ed Balls, who will suddenly develop very sticky hands.)

    It's a (modified) quote from nietzsche. He said that without god (aka organised, universal religious morality) we'd see unbridled horrors as the reason to find each person to have worth in and of themselves just because they were human was gone. That is - the old christians used to cycle back heir wealth because the christian teaching is that each person has worth (they have a soul and you get brownie points with the big guy upstairs i you help them out) now everyone is a cod atheist bar a few holdouts, so why not rip everybody else off? You're only alive once, right?

    mind, he also said that coming to a new morality based on something not batshit would be mans greatest achievement, but we aren't there yet.


    You clearly have been doing some thinking about God because I'm pretty sure we used to disagree on this issue but now it appears we don't.


  16. Please reread my suggestion again as you don't seem to have understood it. I said the first 250sqm of land owned (if owner occupied) should be exempt from LVT, regardless of value.

    So there would be no ongoing fee/tax for owner-occupiers in a typical average terraced or semi-detached house, couples could even own a normal detached house without paying LVT as together they would have a 500sqm exemption, this would apply regardless of value or location, even in central London (as long as it's purely residential owner occupied land).

    The actual size to exempt would be up for debate, I consider 250sqm a reasonable limit.

    At the risk of being accused of Trolling

    Near my local town centre there was an unmade piece of land where people who worked in the town parked every day.

    So the local council had a genius idea to tarmac it and install parking pay and display meters.

    They spent over 100k doing this and now


    They park in the street instead which is perfectly legal but causes problems for residents

    and the council is 100k plus out of pocket.


  17. At the end of the day you cannot create WEALTH by taxing land - how would this even work????

    I've got an idea - lets tax leaves.

    There are Trillions of them, so if the Government put a tax of 1p on a leaf we could wipe out the deficit tomorrow.

    All you can do with taxation is transfer wealth from citizens to the Government

    this does not increase the total wealth in an economy

    and governments always spend the money on things that destroy further wealth creation whereas individuals spend the money on things that increase wealth creation.

    Plus tax itself reduces the total amount of wealth any economy generates in the first place.

    The Government ALREADY takes too much wealth out of private citizens pockets

    the solution is less Government NOT more tax.


  18. Monbiot isnt so bad. While I may disagree with a lot of what he says, he often speaks sense - railing against many things that the left regard as sacred cows.

    He is at least a man of his own convictions and of independent thought. A rare quality these days, even if he is a big old leftie.

    Man of convictions you say.......

    A fervent believer in Global Warming and yet he racks up hundreds of thousands of air miles flying back and to across the Atlantic promoting his books

    I don't believe in Global Warming and I have never flown - one flight probably accounts for my entire annual carbon footprint

    plus he chooses to live in rural Wales in a 4 bed detached house because his wife is Welsh - which requires thousands of miles driving - more carbon emissions.


    Turns out he is now divorced - the above article explores his conviction politics which seem largely based on his own self interest

    Anyway thought I would make this post as I hate to disappoint my public!


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.