No, this is like saying I'm not going to read "Origin of Species" because it is dated and redundant. You don't have to disagree with something to know it's not worth your time.
>George doesn’t argue for property tax.
I don't think this is correct. But hey, you can redefine words all you want. A tax on land versus a tax on property, it's all just another tax.
>Like it is a satirical level of misunderstanding.
It's not satirical or a misunderstanding on my end as far as I'm concerned. I don't care to continue this discussion either. No matter what I'll say you'll demand I read the book, which I'm not going to do. When I compare it to anything you'll accuse me of misunderstanding something so basic as a tax. No thanks, take it up with someone who cares.
Well, I know you don't think that's correct, but that's because you're wrong. You haven't read George's argument and I have, so we're just not on equal footing here.
> A tax on land versus a tax on property, it's all just another tax.
An income tax is also a property tax is also a land tax is also a capital gains tax, yes? This is one way in which you're wrong.
And no, if you didn't exhibit both a ridiculous misunderstanding and an astounding level of confidence in your ignorance, I wouldn't implore you to read the book. You're obviously welcome to carry your ignorance with pride though, so have a good week!
>George doesn’t argue for property tax.
I don't think this is correct. But hey, you can redefine words all you want. A tax on land versus a tax on property, it's all just another tax.
>Like it is a satirical level of misunderstanding.
It's not satirical or a misunderstanding on my end as far as I'm concerned. I don't care to continue this discussion either. No matter what I'll say you'll demand I read the book, which I'm not going to do. When I compare it to anything you'll accuse me of misunderstanding something so basic as a tax. No thanks, take it up with someone who cares.