Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 02:16:09 GMT
royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 04:49:02 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<snip>
See above. I don't know what you are talking about, and I suspect
others reading this are in the same situation.
In the history of, say England, the trend as been to go from more
or less independent freeholders to a highly structured society.
It looks to me like one measure of this relative order is the
level of rent. Makes sense; if there's economic order, there'd
be more production, thus more vig.
If this rent is a measure of how close the society is to collapse,
then there's an interesting tradeoff. Yes?
<snip>
There is no return to the rent-free state. Even the most violent and
destructive revolutions, invasions and collapses have not eliminated
resource rents entirely, except locally where they have entirely
depopulated a whole region. As a general rule, the greater the
resource rents, the more prosperous the society, and vice versa. The
problem is not resource rents. The problem is who gets them.
No, the problems are establishing a functional/correct
means of *deciding* who gets them , and being capable
of applying it.
But that goes back to the old question - what is earned
and what is unearned? That question seems resistant to
objectification.
Ultimately, isn't *everything* then a public good?
<snip>
-- Roy L
--
Les Cargill
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: tonyp
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: Ron Peterson
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: royls
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Prev by Date: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Next by Date: Re: Blockbuster sued by Netflix for patent violations
- Previous by thread: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Next by thread: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|