No, see, he saw some poor kids with iphones, so they must be affordable to all…
1 Like
sure it is. 30% from what? tourism? too funny, that. i like a pleasant vacation. i also like a collaborative work environment. oh, and 70% might be funding that 30% in part. then if all of the uk throws back a percentage to support london, is it really 30%?
London has the highest per-capita GDP in the UK, with the highest tax rates, and its tax revenue subsidizes the rest of the country.
Currently? Government workers. This would be true in a Minarchy as well.
In a voluntary society agreed upon mediators or legal systems would carry out judgements. As I’ve said elsewhere I don’t support incarceration- reputation economies and social banishment would do the trick.
No, increases in productivity was mirrored by an increase in the value of labor. More widgets per person per time period means less hours worked.
Yes, money from government is from taxes of which businesses pay a lot. Additionally businesses also pay a lot of property taxes. Areas with expensive homes or many businesses have a large tax base hence more money of schools.
There aren’t more costs- increase productivity combined with increase efficiency equal more for less. There’s no need for more hours to meet product/service demand.
Responding to an infringement isn’t coercion. Attempting to take or use someone’s property is an infringement- the act of infringing is force. You’ve got the cart before the horse. <edit
I don’t agree with copyright nor do many libertarians, volunterist, an-caps, etc. Intellectual property rights should defined by TOS and reputation.
Which I disagree with. Punishment serves no one by government employees, the only action should be an attempt to redress monetarily and losses or harms.
No, I don’t think that. They are levels of magnitude less expensive than public schooling.
If ones property is taken the labor used to create or purchase the property is taken as well- it is a form of enslavement.
I use equipment that rather old because of my expertise. Non-experts would have a hard time with it. I’m also rather poor.
Preference. One must eat before one can enjoy anything else.
That’s it? The fact that the US had little to no manufacturing competition had nothing to do with it?
All trade can be defined as a market.
So not markets without out governments, I would ask that you think about that for a while. No spontaneous organization without planning…
There is always a difference in wealth between people. Is it always a problem? If not how much difference it is a problem? Is the problem universally accepted as such? How long does the difference have to exist for it to be defined as a problem?
15 years. Tuition fees were introduced for new students in 1998.
from the linked to article “The figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR)”
ok, maybe accurate but not encompassing the ‘grey’ economy of london.
for example: “This compares to London, which pays tax equivalent to 45.2 per cent of GDP created in the capital.”
how is that possible, or even relevant? when the london micro economy does not rely on gross domestic product for income, then those numbers make sense. the rest is just garbage, spouting off percentages as collected by their ‘centre’.
oh, and the first comment for the article you cited:
" John, Fife, 1 year ago
It’s really no surprise because the good people of London are so much more sophisticated, intelligent, hard working and much better looking than everyone else in the UK. The rest of us are so lazy and gormless. Why wouldn’t anyone want to live in London with such fabulous people. The fact that London tax payers are supporting the resut of us has nothing at all to do with the fact that most of the investment in infrastructure, financial and other service industries and everything else is in London."
hear hear.
Reputational economies are inefficient and are obstacles to things like globalization and large firms. The market soution is ratings agencies and reputational monitors, but both of these are subject to capture by those they are monitoring (hello, Moody’s).[quote=“stupendousman, post:84, topic:15348”]
No, increases in productivity was mirrored by an increase in the value of labor. More widgets per person per time period means less hours worked.
[/quote]Why less hours worked? Why wouldn’t the employer want to maximize the hours each employee works, and reduce the size of the workforce? You are assuming that employers want to employ more people working shorter hours even though they could employ fewer people working longer hours. Even if the employees are paid hourly, having fewer employees would still be cheaper since there are fixed costs associated with each employee (e.g., benefits, office space, administration costs, etc.). It is in the employers interests to have fewer employees working longer hours.
So you’re just ignoring the evidence which shows corporate taxes form about 3% of state & local revenue? Are you going to seriously try and argue that businesses account for a large proportion of property taxes? If so, I’d like a citation.
Huh? You’re saying that state imprisonment for copyright infringement isn’t coercion? If it’s not coercion, then what incentive is there to follow the law? And when something that was legal suddenly becomes illegal, how does an infringing activity (like playing Stravinsky) suddenly change from legal and non-forceful to illegal and forceful infringement? It is the same activity, and the only change is the law. The same analysis applies to squatting. And trespassing, as trespassing laws haven’t always existed. And there are societies where common property was the law, such as Aboriginies—but when the UK imposed private property laws on them legally borrowing something became illegal theft even though the physical act of taking something hadn’t changed and there was no use of force.
The only reason I appear to have the cart before the horse is because you’ve internalized the prevailing legal property regime.
If you are going to take a Lockian, labour view of property, then presumably you agree that capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate, 100% inheritance and gift taxes are appropriate, non-productive uses of property should not be protected (e.g., squatter rights should be expanded), and all forms of inter-generational wealth transfers (including money spent on education) are appropriate targets of regulation.
And there is no enslavement involved in trying to take someone’s property. When you are a slave, you don’t have a choice. Those who have property are always free to either bargain with those who have the means to take property from them or to take measures to ensure that others do not have the means to take property from them. This would see to be a true market solution to the issue.
2 Likes
Care to attempt a coherent argument? I have no idea what your principal objection is, other than that you dislike the source (even though you admit their information may be accurate). You are free to cite other sources that you deem more trustworthy.
What is this grey economy you’re talking about? What do you mean?
How would it be impossible for 42.5% of London-sourced GDP to be paid to the government in tax? And why would it be irrelevant that they pay the highest proportion of their GDP in tax? Are tax brackets and progressive taxes also irrelevant? What is the London micro economy you’re talking about and what is your objection/point?
This consideration is taken into account in the comparison between region-specific revenues and region-specific expenditures. So while London contributes 45.2% of its GDP in taxes, it gets back only 35.9% of their GDP in spending. In net, they contribute 10% of their GDP towards subsidizing the rest of the country.
ok, that second quote attributed to me was my quoting from the comments of the article you cited. maybe if you read more and comment less?
Yeah, but full grants went around '92.
I know it’s from the comment section of the article I linked to. You seemed to agree with it when you said “hear hear.” And what’s your point? You are upset that when I used the forum’s quotation tool it attributed the text to you? Are you acknowledging that you don’t have any substantive objections?
no. i simply disagree with that article’s interpretation of data. my point is that those figures do not show what you claimed: “London has the highest per-capita GDP in the UK, with the highest tax rates, and its tax revenue subsidizes the rest of the country.”
You disagree without saying how you disagree, how their interpretation is incorrect, or providing any references. The figures do indeed show that London is subsidizing the rest of the country: they are the only region to pay more in tax than they receive in government expenditures. The figures also show that they pay more than any other region in taxes. The only thing the particular article doesn’t show (and note that I linked the article only to my claim that London is subsidizing the rest of the country) is that London has the highest per-capita GDP. This is also the least contentious claim, but here’s some evidence for it, anyway. And if that was your point, making angry noises about how you didn’t actually write things from your post that I quoted probably isn’t the best way to make it.
wealthy investors, who pay taxes as londoners, live in london. that is not the same as producing the uk’s gross domestic product (your error and the error of the article that you read and referred me to). as to the actual domestic product of the uk, what does that consist of?
just pointing out you were wrong, again.
i’m going to stop responding to you now, before you suffer a coronary or aneurysm from your apopleptic mindframe. happy holidays to you.
I see. If that was your point, what was your strategy in refusing to disclose you point (even when I explicitly asked for it) until now?
Also note that I linked to sources indicating the actual per-capita GDP and GVA of London: under both measures London is far more productive than other regions in the UK. Further note that the reason many wealthy foreigners live in London is because of the UK’s non-taxation of foreign income, so they are unlikely to be a major direct source of tax revenue. Note that even if high London tax revenues are not drawn from UK-sourced income, these taxes are still being collected in London and are still being used to subsidize the rest of the UK. The only difference would be that the subsidizing would be done more by wealthy foreigners and less by UK workers.
I meant applied to crimes. But I do think they’ll be important come post-scarcity.
There is a finite number of customers. Additionally I was referring to the development of working conditions, litigious workers were rare back in the day so hiring costs were lower.
Seems you citation isn’t without critics.
[Businesses Paid Nearly Half of All State-Local Taxes in 2012][1]
[1]: Businesses Paid Nearly Half of All State-Local Taxes in 2012[quote=“bwv812, post:90, topic:15348”]
Huh? You’re saying that state imprisonment for copyright infringement isn’t coercion?
[/quote]
I don’t agree with that nor did I argue with it.
Oh sweet Odin. Can I crash at your place at my leisure? Walk in when you’re going to the bathroom? No?
It has pretty much always been so.
Why is that? Aren’t the owners of the company (share holders) already taxed? Why even have a capital gains?
You decides what’s productive? Top people in government? Squatters rights, sounds like a mess.
Slaves are free to either bargain for their freedom/wages or takes measures…
Nope that’s a violence based solution.
Trying to apply reputational standards to “crimes” in a post-criminal society is even more difficult. How can you tell if someone is a “criminal” when there are no courts and no prisons? How do you track these people when they move between cities or adopt new names (not registered since this is another element of government regulation).[quote=“stupendousman, post:99, topic:15348”]
There is a finite number of customers. Additionally I was referring to the development of working conditions, litigious workers were rare back in the day so hiring costs were lower.
[/quote]
Who cares how many customers there are? All a corporation has to know is that there is a market for x widgets. Given this market for x widgets, why would they want to hire more workers to work fewer hours as opposed to hiring fewer workers to work longer hours? Each additional worker means additional fixed costs ranging from benefits to work space.
Even applying this extremely generous interpretation of tax contributions, the fact remains that individual taxpayers are the largest component of school funding, which was the original point.
No? Here’s what you did say
Copyright and other intellectual property laws are property laws. Yet you say that responding to an infringement (such as copyright infringement) isn’t coercion. It seems very much like you’re saying that responses—such as imprisonment—to property law infringements aren’t coercion.
I’m not saying that all laws, or all property laws are bad. I’m saying that you have to recognize that property laws are not neutral, and that they are forms of regulation that help determine who the winners and losers are.
And I wouldn’t mind a law that said I have to take in random strangers if the law also meant I could take the money of random strangers.
So that’s your principled defence of the law? Tradition? The status quo? How long do things like the FLSA or other government regulations have to exist before they become just as traditional and sacrosanct?
Because, as a Lockian, labour-theory of property individual you shouldn’t be recognizing gains made through no productive exertion of your labour to be legitimate.
Umm, you’re the one who argued in favour of labour-based property rights. If you’re not working the land, and I am, doesn’t that mean I own it? There’s nothing complex about squatters rights at their most absolute: if squatters are in possession, they own it. The current system of land titles, registration, liens, mortgages, etc. is a real mess in comparison.
Really? Can a property owner purchase a gun? Can a slave? Can a property owner pay someone? Can a slave?
You don’t think violence is a market force?
2 Likes
