A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.
A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income
Source: literally any discussion about progressive taxation and Georgism
I am not a Progressive arguing in favor of Progressivism. I am loosely a “third way” neoliberal with Georgist tendencies (also in favor of Pigouvian taxation, etc), arguing that words have actual meanings.
I’m confused. By tax rate, you must mean the percentage of the taxable amount.
In that case, land ownership being correlated with wealth and income isn’t sufficient to prove that LVT is progressive.
Consumption spending also correlates with wealth and income, but a sales tax is usually considered regressive.
So it’s possible that the LVT can be progressive, but only if the percentage of wealth spent on land rises with income. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but what is your basis for believing it is?
I’m not the person you’ve been talking to, by the way.
I’m just asking you to explain your logic, or the logic of the entire economic community if that’s what it is. If you’re so certain that what you’re saying is true, it shouldn’t be that hard to explain the logic behind such a conclusion.
Thats nonsensical. A flat income tax is, by definition, non-progressive. The rate does not increase.
LVTs tax you on the unimproved value of land and some land is inherently more valuable than others. If you can afford said land, you pay more in taxes.
Unimproved land having differing value is rather a core component of Georgism
No, I am definitely not.
Source: literally any discussion about progressive taxation and Georgism
I am not a Progressive arguing in favor of Progressivism. I am loosely a “third way” neoliberal with Georgist tendencies (also in favor of Pigouvian taxation, etc), arguing that words have actual meanings.
I’m confused. By tax rate, you must mean the percentage of the taxable amount.
In that case, land ownership being correlated with wealth and income isn’t sufficient to prove that LVT is progressive.
Consumption spending also correlates with wealth and income, but a sales tax is usually considered regressive.
So it’s possible that the LVT can be progressive, but only if the percentage of wealth spent on land rises with income. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but what is your basis for believing it is?
deleted by creator
I’m not the person you’ve been talking to, by the way.
I’m just asking you to explain your logic, or the logic of the entire economic community if that’s what it is. If you’re so certain that what you’re saying is true, it shouldn’t be that hard to explain the logic behind such a conclusion.
Source: Wikipedia
Yes, I assumed you needed the Playskool definition since I am hoping you are in your late teens.
I won’t be dragged down to your level, man.
I’m trying to drag you up several levels.
That’s like saying that a flat income tax is a progressive tax because some people have more income.
Thats nonsensical. A flat income tax is, by definition, non-progressive. The rate does not increase.
LVTs tax you on the unimproved value of land and some land is inherently more valuable than others. If you can afford said land, you pay more in taxes.
Unimproved land having differing value is rather a core component of Georgism