Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... The incentive effect is only one of three relevant factors; the other two are resource allocation and moral legitimacy. Income and capital taxes fail on
    Message 1 of 142 , Dec 4, 2012
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

      > 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 incentive effect is only one of three relevant factors; the other two are resource allocation and moral legitimacy. Income and capital taxes fail on all three counts.

      > The taxation of income starting at some arbitrarily high level at some
      > arbitrarily low level does not really have an economic effect whatsover.

      Incorrect. It will directly affect resource allocation by taking resources from the private sector and devoting them to the public sector.

      > Some miniscule tax starting at the 100 millionth dollar of income has absolutely no effect on productivity.

      Incorrect, as explained above. It might not affect the recipient's effort, but it affects the amount of resources he has to devote to productive purposes like investment in research, machinery, buildings, employee training, etc. Putting available resources into more productive hands is a key advantage of a free market economy.

      > That is because we are not machines.

      But machines are.

      > Even a tax that is not so minuscule at some arbitrary high (obscene
      > really) level does not change productivity.

      Incorrect, as explained above. The problem is that income tax rules typically do not distinguish between income obtained by commensurate contributions of labor and capital to production and income obtained by rent seeking. The latter can be taxed away entirely, and the effect on production will only be beneficial. The former cannot be taxed at all without negatively affecting resource allocation.

      > And in general, laborers do
      > not really labor any less because of taxation. (they usually labor more.)

      Not so, as proved by the millions of laborers who charge lower rates for off-the-books cash payments that enable them to evade taxes.

      > I suppose greedy capitalists (as opposed to regular capitalists) may make
      > some decision on how to use capital based on tax considerations

      Bingo. And whether to allocate their purchasing power to productive capital investment or consumption.

      > 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.

      That's because he and most of his ilk are rent seeking, not producing.

      > 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.

      Whose else are they?

      > 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.

      How so?

      > 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 most certainly is.

      > 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 non-existent.

      It's not minuscule or non-existent when a lot of highly skilled labor is being devoted to tax avoidance.

      > "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 rich.'

      The earth. Not the fruits of private labor and investment.

      -- Roy Langston
    • roy_langston
      ... 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, 2012
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- 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!

        So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said.

        > 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.
        > >
        > > What do you mean, "took"? He made his
        > > OWN effort, creating a new product which
        > > others did not create.
        > He did not.

        He indisputably did.

        > 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 company
        > > > > > 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.

        Because 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.

        > 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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.