Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Scott on the Spot" <ssbaker305@...> wrote:
>It's not a weakness, it's just not designed as a "sharing of a burden" by some politically decided standard, it's designed as just payment for receiving benefits.
> I've been wondering about the LVT on IT-heavy companies for some time;
> it seems to be a big weakness of LVT that HG couldn't have anticipated
> (there weren't even telephones for most of his life!).
> I read in the NY Times how Amazon decided to close their Texas warehouseAmazon's business is selling stuff online, not being landowners. Either they rent, and the incidence of an introduction on the landowner, or they own they premises, which means that yes, their function as landlord for themselves would theoretically take a hit in the interim. But it depends what taxes you replace. For a business selling stuff, it's always better to have a tax that you'd pay anyway as land costs, than one that depends on revenue, reported profits, number of employees, number of employees after another federal "jobs"-programme, etc.
> when that state's controller demanded they pay ~$250 million in sales
> taxes. Seems to me that if Texas - which already has the most generous
> company incentives in the country, 51% of the budget! - charged property
> taxes to any significant degree higher than their neighboring states (it
> is somewhat higher), than Amazon would move because of that too,
> assuming everything else was equal (I know it's not).
> The problem isI think that's a very good point. Heavy transport is subsidized. From a marginal cost perspective, one new Honda on the highway, if it's not crowded, does not make a slightest difference for anyone, and having the highways is a great benefit to the economy. Having x tons of trailers churning the asphalt however, ought to be subject to at least the extra costs they generate.
> that the roads are not charged for properly, which is one reason big box
> stores and big warehouse retailers can make money over local stores.
> Until road use is properly charged for and not supplemented by general
> highway bill revenue, there will be distortions in locating both of
- --- 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