Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
>No, that is incorrect. If you instituted a perfect LVT, a cumbersome tax would still result in unemployment. Sure, our system of land tenure is the biggest reason for the constant un-and-underemployment, but it's not the only one possible.
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:00 AM, mattbieker
> > I think you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not like there's
> > necessarily some personal disincentive to work. What happens is that the
> > tax misallocates resources, and results in unemployment.
> This is not correct. Unemployment results from landlords collecting
> parasitically rent at the expense of labor.
> I don't really even understand what you actually mean by tax misallocatingAs I pointed out "of course, we know that most people who earn massive incomes did not genuinely earn it."
> resources. The taxation of the income at some arbitrary high starting
> point of the wealthy DOES not cause unemployment - that is in the US the
> tired bs don't tax the "job creators" argument.
That's the only reason what you say has any truth to it. By arbitrarily selecting a sufficiently high level of income tax, you'll basically just end up taxing privilege. That's *a* way of taxing privilege, but it's not the best way. And it will likely tax legitimately-earned income, which will misallocate resources.
> It is best to tax land values, but in transition there is nothing unsoundI disagree. That's a case of "lesser evils" at best. Such taxation should only be resorted to the the extent that it's unavoidable to do so.
> either economically or from a social justice point of view of a progessive
> income tax on the fat ct tail of the distribution.
- --- 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