Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
>Probably true, but would such a tax raise any revenue, is it worth the administration of such a tax just to maintain the notion that "the rich" owes something by their mere existence...?
> It's all well and good as a general principal that we should substitute the
> taxation of labor and capital with the taxation of land, but as a
> transitional matter let's not get bogged down with notion that all labor
> and capital taxation at any level as an actual disincentivizing effect.
> The taxation of income starting at some arbitrarily high level at some
> arbitrarily low level does not really have an economic effect whatsover.
> Some miniscule tax starting at the 100 millionth dollar of income has
> absolutely no effect on productivity.
> That is because we are not machines.The "works more because of taxation" and "works less because of taxation" effects probably nets off. The problem is the tax wedge standing between people freely transactioning with each other. Take the current tax-system in place over here, 25% VAT, 14,1% payroll-tax and on average 36% in income taxes. Imagine a series of 3 people, A, B and C. I'm B and want to hire C to do something, and I'll sell a service to A to pay for it. No other costs are involved. In the current system, for C to receive x amount of net income, I'll have to charge A five times x!
> Even a tax that is not so minuscule at some arbitrary high (obscene
> really) level does not change productivity. And in general, laborers do
> not really labor any less because of taxation. (they usually labor more.)
> I suppose greedy capitalists (as opposed to regular capitalists) may make
> some decision on how to use capital based on tax considerations but at the
> tail, whether a guy like Romney nets 149 million or 150 million because of
> taxation is really inconsequential to his decision-making and ostensible
> "productive" activity.
> Now I don't buy into the notion, that many here have adopted, that all the
> fruits of my labor or my capital are MINE without any obligation. Those
> fruits which are above and beyond what are necessary for the needs of my
> family and me are subject to some properly perfected claims of the rest of
> humanity who do not have enough to meet their needs. What constitutes
> "properly perfected claims" is something that can be sketched according to
> other principles flowing from the nature of mankind and the nature of
> society's proper relationship to mankind and what constitutes "needs" can
> also be sketched out. It's more than just bread and water. And the
> mechanism is in fact taxation by legitimate government. A graduated income
> tax is not per se a violation of natural rights in any way. It may not be
> precisely the best way but there are worse ways and we need not overstate
> the deadweight loss which at the wealthy tail end is minuscule and even
> "Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the
> rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: 'You are
> not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him
> back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be
> for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:27 AM, mattbieker
> > 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.
> Very truly yours
> John D. Kromkowski
> 6803 York Road -- Suite 207
> Baltimore, MD 21212
> Tel 410-377-6248
> Fax 410-372-0624
> Mobile 443-271-0500
> This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is
> intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally
> privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication
> is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments
> without reading, printing or saving in any manner.
- --- 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