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

Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt

Expand Messages
  • mattbieker
    I don t believe I ve ever defended Roy in the past, and by the way, I m not doing so now. Roy can defend himself or not, I really don t care. I don t care
    Message 1 of 142 , Dec 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't believe I've ever defended Roy in the past, and by the way, I'm not doing so now. Roy can defend himself or not, I really don't care. I don't care what anyone thinks of Roy or anyone else here. My point here is pretty simple, Walt: your ongoing troll-act is tiring. As irritating as Roy can be, your responses don't help.

      Do with that what you will, Walt. I've said my piece. Rest assured I won't bring it up constantly for months on end.


      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
      >
      > I'd be happy to have my last dozen posts compared with your last dozen for content, Matt. What I've seen from you over the years has been the occasional interesting link and defenses of Roy like this current crusade.
      >
      > With respect to my suspension, it came from fighting with Dan Sullivan who also annoyed me by knowing everything and believing intensely that whatever he happened to believe must be true. This aspect of my personality is pretty obvious: I'm going to chide you if you think you know it all. (Too bad.)
      >
      > The fact that I have myself been accused of being a Langston sycophant indicates that I respect his positions when he makes a good case for them. He has convinced me of the virtues of both the personal exemption and the recent purchase exemption. I'm terribly sorry that I don't join you in thinking that the very air he breathes is enchanted, however. He's smart, but not as smart as either you or he thinks he is.
      >
      > I'm also sorry that your sad. But I also think it's sad that you feel the need to waste so many pixels because I have dared to make fun of your buddy. Make a substantial post yourself instead.
      >
      > W
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      > > > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@> wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      > > > > > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@> wrote:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@> wrote:
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > Where did you get your law degree from again, Roy.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > The University of Mount Olympus Law School. Top GPA there.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Athena was one of his advisors until Roy conclusively demonstrated to her that she didn't exist. Didn't even need the hammer to do this, apparently.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > W
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > FYI, on a scale of 1 to 10, with a 1 being a new Adam Sandler flick, and a 10 being, like, Life of Brian, the hammer thing is a -1.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Hey, don't blame me!--It can all be found right here in a very engaging and illuminating confab between your master and JDK. I recommend rereading it often.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > W
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > My master, eh? So, you've pretty much just decided to go full-troll, then?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Really, Walt, your butt-hurt over the child-incentive thing is reaching legendary proportions.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Just curious: on the Python/Sandler scale, where will we find "butt-hurt" and "full-troll"?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > W
      > > > >
      > > > > Decidedly on the Sandler end. As I'm sure all the long-suffering LandCafe subscribers can attest, there's not much funny about butthurt trolls.
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > No doubt. But I'm guessing they might be even sicker of pompous know-it-alls and sycophants. Maybe you should start a poll.
      > > >
      > > > W
      > >
      > > Ah, I can remember when you were accused of being Roy's sycophant. Memories...
      > >
      > > You know, it's sad, Walt. I don't remember your original presence here much, but I do remember being surprised that you'd come back from some kind of suspension, because I didn't know such a thing existed here. I generally enjoyed your posts when you came back. But slowly and surely, they've gotten worse, to the point where I know in advance half of them will be completely devoid of content. Of late, it's so bad that I can see how you're the sort that would find himself suspended on LandCafe. Whatever one may say of Roy, or Harry, or even Reed, it's at least the case that they all tend to at least make some kind of point, whatever one may say of their abilities to do so.
      > >
      >
    • 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.