Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?
From: The Trucker (mikcob_at_verizon.net)
Date: 06/05/04
- Next message: The Trucker: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Previous message: Gordon Gekko: "Re: The 'working poor' scam"
- In reply to: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Next in thread: Peter Lawrence: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:10:23 -0700
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>
> Mark Monson wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Certain expenses must be paid by the entity that is presented
>> with the bill, because there is no opportunity for the expense to be
>> shifted onto others.
>
> If his income < expense how does he stay in business. Let us know as the
> fate of the nation depends on doing this magic trick.
> Profit = incomce - expense. Yes or No. If No, justify your answer. And
> do not obfiscate this simple question is macro-economic claptrap. A
> business man is running his business, not the entire economy.
>
> Bob Kolker
I have asked
you before and will ask again: Why do you think that I or anyone
else cares whether the _current_ owner goes belly up or not? If this
owner can't pay the tax because he was using the flow of rent for
his personal comforts and is unwilling to change his life style
then HE will be out of business and the ownership of the land will
pass to someone else. This is irrelevant to the USERS of the land.
The USERS of the land do not care whether Mr. K. or Mr. J. will
have "owner" stamped on the forehead.
-- http://GreaterVoice.org (a work in progress)
- Next message: The Trucker: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Previous message: Gordon Gekko: "Re: The 'working poor' scam"
- In reply to: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Next in thread: Peter Lawrence: "Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|