Ignorance, Gillard PM, Holidays Approach, Gaming Reviews

[tcpip]

Most regular readers will know I'm an advocate of land tax as a replace for inefficient and unproductive taxes on labour and capital. On a whim, I entered this discussion on a property investment website. Enjoy the results. What I find particularly remarkable is their ignorance of basic economics (like the Law of Rent or the distinction between land and capital) on matters they claim expertise in. Actually I must confess I find this a lot; often people with a strong opinion on a topic like to think they're an expert on a topic. Personally, I prefer to form a strong opinion by reaching "deeply considered convictions", based on reason and evidence, rather than having "deeply ingrained prejudices" from emotions and assumptions.

Julia Gillard became the first ever female Prime Minister of Australia yesterday (that's only taken over one hundred years, *grumble*). It's an acting position whilst Rudd is in Bali (finally a PM who's acting on climate change!) , and one which seems to attract a share of odd events. I've sent her a congratulatory email (the last email conversation we had was a little terse; I was writing on behalf of Labor for Refugees and she was shadow minister for immigration).

Speaking of which, for the second year in a row, I'm desparately trying to organise tickets to Bali again over the break. I've contacted Flight Centre, and they've sent an email confirmation saying their processing the request, but no confirmation yet. Meh. It's been years since I've been to the archipelago, and I really want to see it again. New Zealand is not an option this summer (I think I'll go south for winter). If this doesn't work out for whatever reason maybe a visit to Tasmania is in order; it's been a while since I've seen Murdoch's former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Boyce and we remain in irregular correspondence.

This week I finally managed to finish my review of Earthdawn: Gamemaster's Compendium; it's a huge, stunning book and quite good on the substance level as well. Not so good is the old AD&D module D1: Descent into the Depths of the Earth, which is seriously lacking in style, substance and a purpose for existence. Played another session of Legend of the Five Rings last Sunday with a refitted AD&D Oriental Adventures module. It's going very well, if only I can hack out some overall narrative to the various instances of character development and plot leads.

Comments

[crankynick.livejournal.com]

Dude, your html is broken

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

Enjoy the results.

I agree with everything you've said - but I'd still have tagged you with a Do Not Feed the Troll comment...

[cluebyfour.livejournal.com]

Julia Gillard became the first ever female Prime Minister of Australia yesterday (that's only taken over one hundred years, *grumble*).

What're you complainin' about? It's been 200+ years and we're still waiting for a female President. Hell, we're still waiting for a non-white, non-male President.

. . . although if our only option to end the string is Hillary, I'd rather wait another 200 years!

[cptjohnc.livejournal.com]

On the "enjoy the results" -- I made it most of the way through 5 pages before I couldn't stomach it anymore. You are correct that the folks in that forum do NOT understand even the fundamentals of economics ("I invest in land to make money -- creating jobs is the government's job" -- wow!)("some guy named smith")

The one thing that makes me skittish about embracing the academic concept proposed in the real world, though, is the idea that a government will increase a tax on one good (land), and lower the tax on other goods (labour, capital). My experience (which is clearly not comprehensive or objective) is that governments do not reduce taxes on other goods, or at least not enough, to see the true benefit of the tax revision. This is why perfect academic models don't always translate into success in the 'real world' (I know you understand this -- I'm just trying to be clear).

One thing that appears absent from the discussion, though, is zoning... Is that a concept that has any traction in Australia? taking an overly simplistic view, then: If we were to appropriately tax just the unimproved value of the land, this would seem to be good for me, as I own a small piece of land, and bad for the owners of homes on larger parcels... or would it? The economic value of land is tied inherently to the use(s) to which it may be put. In my locality (and most others in the US) we zone property to control its use. As such, my land is valued at a much higher rate per acre than land which is zoned for lower density. Thus, my .08 acre is valued at almost the same $$ amount as a neighbor's .25 acre because they can each support 1 home, given current zoning.

Obviously, Zoning is another kind of "Tax" -- one which has costs and benefits. Does the proposal you are endorsing account for this additional layer of "tax" or is that tied in some other way? Just curious (and too lazy to read more on it now).

[greylock.livejournal.com]

I didn't have time to read the land tax thread in detail (even after reading the FAQ I'm fuzzy on exactly how it would replace other taxes), but that's beside the point:

The people on that forum are veritable intellectual gods on par with S. Hawking compared with the "people" on investor forums like Hot Copper.

[evil-genius.livejournal.com]

I'm going through that land tax thread now. I'm up to post 43 and wow. It really seems like these people don't understand what you are saying at all.

If I'm understanding it. You are talking about building long term wealth for both the land owner and society as a whole. While these folks clearly could give a toss about anyone else but themselves and anything else but the next 5 years or so.
Which was illustrated beautifully here:

I'm paddling my canoe and care about my canoe.

The myopic selfishness is really breath taking.

Reading post 43 brings up a question I never get a satisfactory answer too. Where is it these people think taxes go?

"To even kid yourself that a tax helps anybody but the prevailing govt raise revenue is a joke."

It seems to me that he is suggesting citizens receive no benefit from the existence of government. Which is clearly just hog wash.

Our number 43 guy goes on to bitch that:

"I say lopsided as it targets a group that is an easy target due to its minority representation. For all the rates and land tax I pay I only get one state vote and one local council vote.

In fact if you look at most state taxes they are none represented taxes, payroll tax, stamp duty and obviously land tax. And why is it that the state only levies none represented taxes? Its because they don't have the balls to actually levy a tax where it needs to answer to the people who elected it. "

It seems he thinks the amount of tax you pay should be in some way tied to how much influence receive. IE if you pay twice as much as the next guy in taxes you should have twice as many votes. Or the flip side of that insane line of argument. That we should all pay the same exact tax(not % but actually $ value) regardless of income or personal wealth. Both situations are only realistically possible in either an aristocracy or a communist state.
Last time I checked economic equality has always existed. Why turn back the clock on political progress 700 years just to make representation in government just as inequitable?

What an asshole.



more later....

jatku

[evil-genius.livejournal.com]

Post 46 is especially idiotic.

No-one Australian? No-one currently working? Just because you have overseas references, doesn't mean it will work in Australia.

Because we all know economic principals are completely non-transferable. Each country is in fact a complete microcosm of economic law and causality. Nothing learned from one economy can be successfully implemented in another.
And only Australian economists, who are currently working, could hope to make any accurate observations or predictions about even the most fundamental aspects of the Australian economy.

It really is just as bad as the US isn't it.

Post 47

We are coming from a 180° opposite viewpoint on this subject. You're looking at this subject from a Govt-revenue side of things. I'm looking at it from a private citizen-cost side of things. Our objectives are not the same. By definition, what is good for one side is bad for the other.

Because once again the government exists only to the detriment of the citizenry.
What color is the sky in these people's world?

post 48 another idiot confused about what communism actually is.

Post 49 points out a startlingly accurate observation that never came to mind. IE landlords don't do shit.
and the following few post act as though it is you and not them who have been busted.

Post 53 seems to not get the rather obvious link between an increase of cheap land and a reduction of renting said cheaper land.

Post 54 displays an all to common and utterly disgusting anti-intellectualism. The world would apparently be a much better place if we just had less smart people.


*stopped reading at this point*

I'm guessing that the thread only deteriorates into a pointless flame war after these gems.

If you'd like (purely for entertainment value) I can strap on my flame thrower and burn that mother down.
Just say the word :)

[telarus.livejournal.com]

Good review!