Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel <davewetzel42@...> wrote:
> Just received this from an economics academic in USA.Why should they pay tax for providing a desirable service?? However much it may be an established dogma of mainstream neoclassical economics, the notion that one's tax burden should be proportional to how much one contributes to society through productive labor and capital goods rather than how much one takes from society through rent seeking privileges is self-evidently false, absurd, and evil.
> It is a common argument I face.
> A recent example is Amazon paying no corporation tax (company profits tax)
> in UK but do pay vat (UK sales tax) on all sales (under the current
> It is argued that with lvt they'd pay no vat nor profits tax and only pay
> lvt for 4 warehouses in he UK.
> What is the definitive argument?
> -- Hi Dave: Well, land tax used to be almost the only tax. But it would leave land-light entities, like software companies,Software companies have their own government-issued privileges -- patents and copyrights -- that should either be taxed or abolished. And if they are abolished, software companies won't have much money to tax anyway.
> insurance,Insurance companies typically occupy very valuable downtown locations, so they will pay LVT. And if they don't have land titles and other privileges to invest in, they won't be making much money, either.
> real estate,Huh? Real estate companies won't be paying LVT?? Run that one by me again.
> etc., etc., not taxed at allWrong. See above.
--esp if there is no income tax.
I repeat: why should people and companies be required to pay tax for being productive enough to earn income, rather than for taking from society through government-issued and -enforced privileges??
> And how aboutThey will generally choose to assist the market in allocating the land more productively by seeking accommodation better suited to their needs and means.
> retirees and other who own land but must live in pensions or investments
> subject to a tax which woul be hefty if it were the govt's only source of revenue...
> You've probably thought about all these issues. But I agree taxingIf you want as much money as possible in the LONG run, that's what you CANNOT do.
> something productive, like labor, is a dangerous thing...But if you want as much money as possible, that's what you have to do..
-- Roy Langston
- --- 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