Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: "Ron Peterson" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Apr 2006 06:36:42 -0700
Les Cargill wrote:
Ron Peterson wrote:
Would the goal of such a decision procedure be to maximize economic
efficiency?
I suppose so.
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.
I suspect it's going to end up a "Suffering Theory
of Value". If you suffered, you earned it.
If we could measure it, suffering to provide income would be a
possibility for determining wether the effort or resources put forth
qualified as earned.
Ultimately, isn't *everything* then a public good?
No, some things are personal.
Only in the absence of the ability to collect enough
data.
Most pictures of a family isn't marketable to the general public, hence
it isn't a public good. If I prepare a meal at home, I'm not making
something for sale, and therefore it's not a public good.
I am interpreting a public good to be a commodity, but you may have had
something else in mind.
--
Ron
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: royls
- 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
- From: Ron Peterson
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Prev by Date: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Next by Date: Re: Please Critque these informally presented ideas about fixing the rising health care cost problem
- Previous by thread: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Next by thread: Re: novel argument against taxing rents
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|