Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: "Ron Peterson" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Apr 2006 12:50:55 -0700
Les Cargill wrote:
royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
... 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.
Would the goal of such a decision procedure be to maximize economic
efficiency?
But that goes back to the old question - what is earned
and what is unearned? That question seems resistant to
objectification.
Doesn't that depend on theory of value being proposed? The labor theory
of value seems to suggest that it should be the amount of labor time
involved. In that case land owner's income would be considered to be
unearned.
Ultimately, isn't *everything* then a public good?
No, some things are personal.
--
Ron
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- References:
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Prev by Date: Re: how to compare living standards
- Next by Date: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Previous by thread: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Next by thread: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|