Re: [LandCafe] Re: Software companies etc would pay little tax with lvt
- matt,Exactly!People who become very rich by providing the community with what they want shouldn't be taxed at all.People who become very rich by virtue of special privilege should have the privilege removed.
Harry********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
--- 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 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.
> 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 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.
It's not only that someone who genuinely earns his income is entitled to it; it's that, in aggregate, all such individuals will act to allocate resources more efficiently. It may be the case that if you stole half their income they'd work just as hard anyways, but it's not clear that doing so would have better results.
Of course, we know that most people who earn massive incomes did not genuinely earn it. That's where the focus ought to be.
- --- 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