It is important, John, to realize that companies are not penalized by LVT. If they pay higher LVT it is because they are getting more advantage from theMessage 1 of 142 , Dec 4 2:29 PMView SourceIt is important, John, to realize that companies are not penalized by LVT. If they pay higher LVT it is because they are getting more advantage from the community.If they pay less it's because they are receiving less.The fact that a company may be making high profits is no reason to raise their taxes.If they are getting their high profits from other privileges, such privileges should be removed not taxed.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:50 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
-- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
> > Dave Wetzel
> Roy nailed the first response: why WOULD we want
> to make sure all productive activity is taxed?
> If someone is able to add value to the economy
> while at the same time consuming few resources,
> we would be wise to avoid disincentivizing that.
I fully agree. However, the way they think is why should a land-heavy company pay more than a land-light company when say they make the same profits.
Technology means Amazon can be land-light. Other companies "need" to be land-heavy and are penalized by LVT. OK, a company can build a taller building and sell off land to get the same production effect and lower the LVT bill - maximizing the use of land. But heavy industry cannot work on multiple floors. So do land-heavy industries have to up their prices? As LVT is across the board all land-heavy companies are in the same boat and equal.
Currently, many financial organisations make amazing amounts of money, and are land-light, compared to heavy industry land-heavy companies who make a fraction of the money the financial companies make. That is the nature of the two industries. Amazons's is no different to this. The land-heavy company still has the land asset which the likes of Amazon do not.
Also, Amazon has to set up near transport routes, near to conurbations to give easy access to skilled labour, services, etc. They can't set up on the side of hill in Scotland where land is pennies. They have a large warehouse/offices right on junction 13 of the M1 motorway, simply because of the transport access, where the land is not cheap to buy.
I believe for years on end Amazon never made a profit, showed no signs of making a profit and yet had a high stock price in the Dot-Com boom. They were swilling in cash though. They paid the book suppliers, package suppliers and delivery companies way down the line, cashing the customer's money immediately. They never had a cash flow problem.
... So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said. ... No, it is being produced by a publisher and sold by booksellers.Message 142 of 142 , Dec 10 12:27 PMView Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said.
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
> > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
> > > > > If I write a book and it sells well for
> > > > > 5 years, where am I being paid many times?
> > > >
> > > > You are being paid each time someone buys one.
> > > > Surely this is obvious.
> > >
> > > I am not. Over 5 years if the book
> > > makes say £100,000 and then publication halts,
> > > then I have been paid once for that book run.
> > No. If you had been paid a flat fee,
> > that would be one payment.
> Roy, so what!
> If I get paid one fee at the end of a book run or drip fed each time a book is sold, it doesn't matter. One thing that is clear, it is MY book and MY work.No, it is being produced by a publisher and sold by booksellers. For whose work YOU are being paid multiple times.
> The most recorded song in history, by countless artists, is "Yesterday" written by Paul McCartney. He gets a royalty for each record sold, or played on air, by those who copy.Getting paid millions of times for the same work, just as Shaw said.
> Those who copy still make money as well.Some do, some don't. How would that be relevant?
> I see nothing wrong with that. Paul McCartney has never stopped any of them recording his song.Then why would they pay him for doing nothing?
> All the proceeds of his original go to him and rightly so..No, it is not just "his original," but all the other arrangements and versions as well.
> > > He took someone else's effort.He indisputably did.
> > What do you mean, "took"? He made his
> > OWN effort, creating a new product which
> > others did not create.
> He did not.
> He took the efforts of other authors R&D and rolled it into one book.No, he did his own R&D, making one better book using ideas from worse books.
> I have always thought of doing the same myself. Within a few weeks a "new" book can be knocked up by using other people's efforts. I am sure it happens all the time.And there is nothing wrong with it.
> > > > > What about the case of a large companyBecause they refuse to know the facts about how land titles and other privileges, which are no part of a free market, steal from the productive and give to the privileged.
> > > > > making millions using your work and you get nothing?
> > > >
> > > > Good for them: it means they are more productive
> > > > and efficient than their competitors, who have
> > > > access to the same knowledge and ideas. If you
> > > > want to get paid for your work, make an arrangement
> > > > to get paid before it enters the public domain.
> > >
> > > That is pure naivety.
> > It is fact.
> Many Socialists claim all the free market does is allow most money to gather with a few percent of the population.
> They claim a free for all does this so control, or state ownership is needed. We see it now with powerful corporations.I see powerful corporations enriching themselves through privilege, not the free market.
> The right never thought through their ideal - the repercussions of when the free-market is rigged or monopolized.The right thinks freedom consists in the privileged being free to remove others' freedom with government's help.
> Roy, you have this ideal of a free for all re: patents and copyright. I agree with it in principle. But when thought through it falls apart.No, it does not.
> The money will rise to the top.<sigh> How much money do Paul McCartney, DisneyCorp, etc. have under the CURRENT system, John?
> I know it is not right. I do not know the solution to the problem - because I have never thought it through.That's OK. I have.
-- Roy Langston