Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 06/05/04
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Previous message: Mike Z. Helm: "Re: WoD letter to editor"
- In reply to: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Next in thread: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Reply: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:03:16 GMT
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:40:39 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"
<robert_kolker@hotmail.com> wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>> Bob, I want you to respond to this post without snipping anything, and
>> explain which part of what I have written above you do not understand.
>
>I don't understand your conclusion.
??? _Which_ conclusion? I _asked_ you not to snip anything. Can't
you read? Geez.
>If income > expense and tax is an
>expense the the income has covered the expense.
So far, so good.
>>From whose pocket does
>the income, come? The businessman's or the customer's?
??? The customer's of course. But that is not the issue. The issue
is, from whose pocket does the _expense_ come? If the rent a tenant
pays is exactly the same after a land tax is implemented as before
(which it is), he is not paying the tax. There is no less money in
the tenant's pocket, only in the landowner's pocket. So the tax comes
out of the landowner's pocket, not the tenant's, and the landowner is
paying the tax, not the tenant. I don't know any clearer way to say
this.
-- Roy L
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Previous message: Mike Z. Helm: "Re: WoD letter to editor"
- In reply to: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Next in thread: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Reply: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|