Mark Wadsworth: Killer Arguments against LVT, not (93)

Friday, 11 February 2011

Killer Arguments against LVT, not (93)

12 comments:

Steven_L said...: Nice triangle! I came up with a theory once when I was about 17 and on magic mushrooms that everything works in triangles (or 3's)

Protons, neutrons, electrons. Vegetable, animal, mineral. Blue, Green, Red (makes white light). Solid, liquid, gas. We live in a 3d universe!

The idea is to put circles around the triangles!; 11 February 2011 at 21:53
Steven_L said...: I could get really drunk if you like while I make some diagrams, then eat my slow cooked chilli oxtail, and then post the theory up here.

Show you how to put squares around the circles! If you have put a circle around the triangle, you can put squares around the circle, and once you do that you gain complete power over all the people that haven't managed to put the circles around the triangles!; 11 February 2011 at 22:09
Mark Wadsworth said...: SL, the shape is not so important, it's pointing out to the morons out there who hate Council Tax (see previous post) that while they can squabble over what is a better replacement, Poll Tax or LIT, they are heading in the wrong direction(s), and if shit hits fan, I vastly prefer Council Tax to either PT or LIT.; 11 February 2011 at 22:31
Steven_L said...: It's OK MW, I'm watching Robocop, after having popped to the pub.

Oh, the shapes are important! The circle around the triangle represents undertanding, the square around the circle a trick.

You can put a circle around a triangle or a square around a cricle in infinate ways ... but ...

The circle around the triangle always looks the same, but the square around the circle can look infiniate different ways.

The circle is the truth, the square is a misrepresentation of it. Only educating people to put the circles around the triangles frees them from the tyranny of the squares!; 12 February 2011 at 02:16
Anonymous said...: I prefer to see it as a triangular pyramid , the dotted lines representing the unseen edges.LVT then becomes the point where all three of todays alternatives converge.
However , I can't really see the point of this diagram as it doesn't convey any real meaning or message quickly and easily.
You are to be encouraged to produce more graphics which illustrate your arguments , as they do ( if well constructed , not as in above ) get concepts more easily understood than screeds of text.
DKMCG; 12 February 2011 at 11:37
Anonymous said...: Hi Steven L and MW,

The three thing (triadic relationships) was done to death in the Victorian period (from Hegel I think).
In the British context, see JFC Fuller's, 'The Science of War' as an example entering the mainstream.
As one critic at the time joked, logically, 'Knife, fork , spoon' would also conform to the underlying triadic system!

Mike W; 12 February 2011 at 13:05
Mark Wadsworth said...: DKMCG, this was fired off for future reference. Most people who oppose Council Tax say it should be replaced with PT or LIT, both of which are heading in the wrong direction and even worse than CT.

So if it came to a fight, I prefer CT to PT or LIT, because at least it contains a small LVT element (CT is a mixture of all PT, LIT and LVT).

The best replacement for CT is of course LVT, which is heading in the opposite direction. Some idiots say that LVT is like PT, which it clearly isn't. In fact LVT is the best replacement for nearly all taxes, separate issue.

Mike W, the shape isn't important, it just happens to be a triangle for simplicity's sake (I could have bunged in the loony idea of 'Local Sales Tax' and made it square, for example).; 12 February 2011 at 15:08
Anonymous said...: Hi Mark,

Agreed, very happy with your diagram - my comments, were more for the mystic bent of Steve L above, that's all.

Mike W; 12 February 2011 at 15:35
subrosa said...: Don't let them run you around in circles, triangles or squares Mark. I understand your graphic perfectly and would agree CT is the best option.; 13 February 2011 at 02:30
Mark Wadsworth said...: Sub, I'm an economist so I prefer LVT; people with low wages (whether with or without high investment income) would prefer LIT; and people in big houses with high wages would prefer PT.

It's horses for courses, CT is just a mixture of all three.; 13 February 2011 at 09:48
Bayard said...: It's horses for courses, CT is just a mixture of all three.

Yes, but it should be closer to PT than LIT and closer to LVT than PT; it's not a mixture of equal shares.; 13 February 2011 at 09:58
Mark Wadsworth said...: B,

1. At the lower end, Council Tax is very much like LIT, because of Council Tax benefit which is income-means tested, it's like having a LIT of 5%, but the LIT is capped at whatever the Council Tax for the claimant's home happens to be.

2. And it is regressive to home values - it's 2% of the value of the cheapest houses and only 0.3% of the value of a £1 million house, so that makes it much more like PT than LVT, and the single person's discount also makes it a bit more like PT.; 13 February 2011 at 11:33

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)