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

Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... More accurately, it results from landowners DEMANDING rent before they will permit labor to access opportunity, and the inability of many laborers to meet
    Message 1 of 142 , Dec 4, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

      > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:00 AM, mattbieker
      > <agrarian.justice@...>wrote:
      >
      > > 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.

      More accurately, it results from landowners DEMANDING rent before they will permit labor to access opportunity, and the inability of many laborers to meet those demands. If the landowner is actually collecting the rent, it means the laborer can afford it, and is working. It is when the least productive laborers can't afford the rent, and it goes uncollected, that land and labor are both idled.

      > You could entirely untax labor
      > altogether and you'd still have unemployment as long as their was rent seeking behavior

      More accurately, as long as there was labor that could not afford to pay rent, whether to a private landowner or the community. That is why the UIE is essential.

      > All you have to do is go to Somalia. There is still
      > unemployment because their is still parasitic rent seeking behavior.

      More accurately, people's rights to use land have been removed by private landholders rather than government, and those who can't afford to pay rent are thus deprived of the opportunity to work.

      > I don't really even understand what you actually mean by tax misallocating
      > 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.

      Not so. It causes some unemployment; but because the greater one's income, the more of it tends to consist of rent, the less taxation of that income damages production and employment.

      > It is best to tax land values, but in transition there is nothing unsound
      > either economically or from a social justice point of view of a progessive income tax on the fat ct tail of the distribution.

      There is, as already explained. The only way around that is to tax rent income exclusively, according to its source, rather than income per se according to its amount.

      -- 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
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.