• OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Okay, no, youre operating off of faulty logic. Everyone is going to be jacking up their prices the same amount, because they all can and they all want to maintain income. They will move in a coordinated fashion to raise prices as they always have historically done, whether that coordination is merely born of the same interests or active conspiracy.

    Also even within neoclassical logic demand would increase as people have more money, the supply would stay the same, so prices would equalize higher.

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s two things at play here: the LVT and the UBI.

      LVT does not distort prices. It doesn’t matter if they want to maintain income any more than they currently want to increase income. Their income has always been based on the chart above; it’s not a conspiracy.

      The UBI doesn’t significantly increase demand for housing in practice. We hear this same argument about minimum wage increases or anything else that puts more money in the hands of the working class. People having more money doesn’t make them spend it all on more housing.

      I’m trying to explain the logic behind the underlying economics, but these have both been tested in practice too.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think you’re getting the logic wrong, and the basic logic also isn’t rooted in empirical studies.

        Can you please cite empirical studies that make your case?

        I could be wrong of course, but even if LVT plus UBI work it would still be better to just do what the CPC did and stop enforcing the right to own other people’s homes.

        • explodicle@local106.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure which part about this you’re not getting and I don’t want to explain what elasticity is. LVT and UBI not distorting prices isn’t contentious outside of internet arguments like these. No offense but have you taken econ 101?

          You make a fair point about the adversarial relationship. I can see how you might be right about that. I’m only disputing the claim about LVT leaving economic rent, and that it would cause inflation. Since that’s the initial claim, I would like you to cite studies for that first.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’ve taken econ 101. It seems like you’ve only taken econ 101. I know of no serious academic that argues that lvt has no price distortions, only that lvt has lower price distortions than other modes of taxation.

            What economics education do you have? I’ve spent years studying neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxist economics. (Well, more than a decade on marxist economics, I’ve even read translated Vietnamese and Chinese texts on it) I am confident in saying that the assumptions you are relying on is faulty on theoretical bounds within neoclassical economics (which is where your argument is coming from) as well as within Marxist economics. But theory only goes so far, and if you have empirical evidence to the contrary I’d love to see it.