# Profits are a tax on labor **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283 "2013-07-12T03:07:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/481 "2013-08-12T01:20:46Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > When I talk about rent as unearned income, I’m talking about net income, not gross. . . . What difference does that make? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/482 "2013-08-12T01:39:58Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > As far as people providing services for each other: if you provide a service for someone, and he pays you for it, that is, by definition, earned income. Good, you’ve come a long way. Now you just need to realize that providing capital is a service. I _rented_ $140k from someone so that I could _own_ my house. I am very appreciative of that, so I am willing to pay 4% per year. The person renting me that money profits, and I’m okay with that because I benefit. That person may actually be doing more “work” than the kid that rented me a surfboard. The two services are the same, and both generate profit. Keep in mind that if the person renting me money wanted 8% I would have kept renting an apartment instead, in which case he’d make zero profit. What that means is that the two of us have to come to an agreement, by which he gets profit, and I get a house. What you’ve done is tried to demonize the person that rents cash, while making the kid that rents me a surfboard a hero. It’s entirely possible that kid stole the boards and doesn’t pay any taxes, but for some reason you view that as “earned income” worthy of our respect. > [@LinusK](#): > > What I was getting at earlier was the method by which some people are able to live better than everyone else, without performing any service, or doing any work of any kind for anyone. They do it by owning things. Okay, now realize that owning things is actually a lot of work (look up depreciation). Then realize that what you’re describing is what most people call retirement, but you’re probably okay with that. On a side note, you’d be a lot happier if you stopped worrying about how other people live. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/483 "2013-08-12T01:44:06Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Of course profits are a tax on labor. Why is this hard to understand? So are taxes! So then taxes are a tax on profits, which means taxes are a tax on labour!!! ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/484 "2013-08-12T05:56:17Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > If you’re going to force me to argue against your own crappy scenario, you’re going to have to better define your rules. Why is there no other land except for the land you own? If your REAL LIFE landlord right now demanded your firstborn son as rent, would you just throw your hands up in exasperation and give it up, or would you just go rent somewhere else? > > Somewhere else for LESS, but not necessarily FREE. It’s a thought experiment: you said the value of land is what the market will bear. Well, what if I own all the land? What is the value of land, then? … The point is that markets aren’t impersonal, objective measuring devices. They’re created by people. And because they’re created by people, the rules are more fair to some people than to others. > [@](#): > > I dare you to go back to your original post outlining your island scenario and show me where you said that rent was 50% of the income, and the alternative was 25% tax. [Post #410.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16553223&postcount=410) > [@](#): > > Furthermore, I said that I would prefer your scenario to the real world, not a hypothetical $0 rent, 25% tax scenario. In the real world, I DO have to pay rent AND taxes. Obvious a land where there is rent and no taxes is preferable. Your 3rd red herring option of no rent and low taxes doesn’t exist. It’s a thought experiment, the point of which is that all taxes are ultimately paid by people doing work. Think of it this way: suppose everyone owned his or her own land, and everyone paid 25% of all income in tax. Then one day William the Space Alien arrives, and claims all the Earth by right of conquest. He charges rent, which comes out to 50% of the world’s income. But being a generous alien, he takes over the payment of all taxes everyone used to have to pay. So who is really paying the taxes? Aren’t we still paying the taxes, plus the extra 25% that William gets to keep? > [@](#): > > You can try to live wherever you want to live. That’s not what the landlord’s service is. His service is guaranteeing a place to live. But the landlord doesn’t guarantee a place to live. He guarantees you can’t live there, unless you pay him. > [@](#): > > You can absolutely live a life with no guarantee to have a place to live. To think otherwise is a combination of naivete, selfishness, and stupidity. I said in order to live, you must live _some_where. Lots of people live without knowing where they’ll sleep at night. But nevertheless, they will sleep somewhere. > [@](#): > > No, they’re not. So why do you insist on referring to rent exclusive as a percent? I don’t insist on it; it’s just easier. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/485 "2013-08-12T07:45:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe you don’t believe in a Creator or in inalienable rights. I don’t believe in a Creator. “Inalienable rights” is too vague a term for me to say whether I believe in them or not. I do _prefer_ to protect the kinds of rights the ACLU fights for, but does that make them “inalienable”? Not so sure about that. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/486 "2013-08-12T07:48:27Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > And you refuse to acknowledge that those things they own come as a direct result of previous work. Not necessarily, as I have pointed out upthread. And there is some “work” of dubious value to anyone, and some that is wildly overcompensated. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/487 "2013-08-12T16:45:47Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > Someone did do something to earn that land. Then it was passed on down through the generations. The current generation is profiting off excess value that their forefathers generated. If that is something that you feel like is inherently immoral and arbitrary, know that it’s your hangup. Most people do not feel that way. Using and building off things that previous generations have accomplished is the basis of human society. When you talk about somebody doing something to earn land, what is it they did to earn it? Did they raise it from the sea, or did they seize it, by taking it from the people who were there before? > [@](#): > > How different is today’s social organization compared to 2000 years ago when Romans would own city apartments while financed by their country villas that produced wine, oil, and livestock? Or 4000 years ago where Pharaohs and Emperors were profiting off lands they’ve never even heard of much less seen? Making money off something without being present for it is nothing new. Proposing to abolish it is a supremely radical proposition that will alter the economic system in a way that I can’t even begin to enumerate the repercussions. What is the difference between a pharaoh or an emperor or a king who charges his subjects tax, and one who charges his subjects rent? Isn’t the end result the same: the subjects/tenants do the work, and the ruler/landlord reaps the benefits? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/488 "2013-08-12T16:55:43Z")
Double post. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/489 "2013-08-12T17:03:02Z")
> [@](#): > > When you talk about somebody doing something to earn land, what is it they did to earn it? Did they raise it from the sea, or did they seize it, by taking it from whoever was there before? Vast amounts of the USA were settled by homesteaders. You bet your life you could improve and live on the land for at least 20 years. If you did, it was yours to keep. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/490 "2013-08-12T17:46:36Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > When you talk about somebody doing something to earn land, what is it they did to earn it? Did they raise it from the sea, or did they seize it, by taking it from the people who were there before? Yep, at some point it was just claimed. I knew this thread would go there: the OP was deeply flawed, whereas the issue of land ownership is actually a debateable topic. Personally I think it works as fairly as any system could. If you just dished out the land to every citizen then many would not be happy as not all land/locations are equal. Plus many people would sell their land for the necessities of life. You’d end up with a situation much like today if you let people trade land, and much worse than today otherwise. And the situation today is not so bad. I’m sure the vast majority of people that own property now either bought it themselves or are decendants of people who did (or, in the case of the US, land was fairly allocated by the government). You won’t find many cases of land being passed down since it was last seized (which in the case of the UK was about a millenia ago). Property falls apart. Land may lose all value as agriculture becomes less popular and former towns become backwaters. There’s the turmoil of the many wars that have taken place. And, more importantly, eventually there’s always a generation that pisses away the inheritance on wine, women, song and sideburn combs. That’s why most wealthy families are either self made, or can point to a recent ancestor who came to America / Europe / wherever, with sod all. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/491 "2013-08-12T18:07:18Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > It’s a thought experiment: you said the value of land is what the market will bear. > > Well, what if I own all the land? > > What is the value of land, then? And it’s at this point where your thought experiment completely divorces itself from reality. There is no single omnipotent, omnipresent landowner in the real world. Even in the time of kings and pharaohs people could still move to find a more equitable place to live. Also you’re assuming that ALL laborers are renters and ALL non-laborers are owners. There is a middle class that both labors and owns. > [@](#): > > The point is that markets aren’t impersonal, objective measuring devices. They’re created by people. And because they’re created by people, the rules are more fair to some people than to others. And your point is that markets are unfair to a vast majority, which is just plain wrong. > [@](#): > > It’s a thought experiment, the point of which is that all taxes are ultimately paid by people doing work. Think of it this way: suppose everyone owned his or her own land, and everyone paid 25% of all income in tax. Then one day William the Space Alien arrives, and claims all the Earth by right of conquest. He charges rent, which comes out to 50% of the world’s income. But being a generous alien, he takes over the payment of all taxes everyone used to have to pay. > > So who is really paying the taxes? Aren’t we still paying the taxes, plus the extra 25% that William gets to keep? Taxes don’t guarantee you a place to live. I work. I pay taxes. Where’s my free house? You think if we get rid of rich landowners who only own and don’t labor (false) that somehow housing will just miraculously sprout out of the ground? What if I don’t like where I live? What if I want to live by the beach? Does my right to live extend to a right to own my own land extend to where to own that land? > [@](#): > > But the landlord doesn’t guarantee a place to live. He guarantees you can’t live there, unless you pay him. Of course he’s not going to give you a guarantee unless you pay him. That’s because the guarantee has VALUE > [@](#): > > I said in order to live, you must live _some_where. Lots of people live without knowing where they’ll sleep at night. But nevertheless, they will sleep somewhere. They can sleep wherever they want. They’re not GUARANTEED a place to sleep though. That security in knowing is why people pay rent. I can’t believe that you still won’t acknowledge this. > [@](#): > > I don’t insist on it; it’s just easier. Nobody expresses rent as a % of income. The idea that rent can be expressed as a fix % of income is stupid. Unemployed people the world over would flock to a land that charges 50% of income as rent. Nobody would work. They would just flop for free. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Not necessarily, as I have pointed out upthread. And there is some “work” of dubious value to anyone, and some that is wildly overcompensated. My parents own a couple house as as far as I know, they didn’t rape any natives or build it on the back of slaves. They live in a subdivision - none of whom I believe did so either. That subdivision is identical to thousands of other subdivisions, none of the owners did any raping or killing or enslaving to get their land. You want to know who did? People who DIDN’T respect the idea that land can be owned, and to live there you have to pay rent. Asshole conquerors came over to a land. They wanted that land and didn’t want to pay any rent to the people living there. They killed, and pillaged their way until they became owners because fuck rent. Renting is a tax on their labor. They’ve got all this labor they want to exercise. They want to plant tobacco and corn and the asshole landowners won’t let them do so without paying them. Well these virtuous laborers would rather cast off the yokes of the landowners and take the land that’s rightfully theirs. What an awesome system. That is truly the enlightened ideology. > [@LinusK](#): > > When you talk about somebody doing something to earn land, what is it they did to earn it? Did they raise it from the sea, or did they seize it, by taking it from the people who were there before? I’m talking about going to a real estate agent, finding a house, and paying money for that house. I’m talking about going to a plot of land and saying “I’m going to sink millions of dollars into this plot and build an apartment building. Then, instead of just me living on this plot of land, tens, if not hundreds of people can live here. That will increase the value of this plot of land.” I’m talking about a farmer saying “Well I’ve got way too much land here for me to till. I’ll see if anyone wants to pay me rent for this land so they can till the parts that I can’t by myself.” etc. > [@](#): > > What is the difference between a pharaoh or an emperor or a king who charges his subjects tax, and one who charges his subjects rent? Are you asking rhetorically or in ernest? What’s the difference between paying taxes to a despot and a democracy? If you can’t tell the difference between a landlord and a government, I don’t know how we can have a resolution to this thread. Conflating the two is intellectually dishonest. > [@](#): > > Isn’t the end result the same: the subjects/tenants do the work, and the ruler/landlord reaps the benefits? If this is the extent you wish to analogize things without being honest with yourself about the mechanisms and motivations that differentiate the two, you’re doing yourself a disservice. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/492 "2013-08-12T19:58:29Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > in the case of the US, land was fairly allocated by the government Bwahahahaha…you are hilarious! Wait…you weren’t joking? > [@pancakes3](#): > > My parents own a couple house as as far as I know, they didn’t rape any natives or build it on the back of slaves. They live in a subdivision - none of whom I believe did so either. That subdivision is identical to thousands of other subdivisions, none of the owners did any raping or killing or enslaving to get their land. > > You want to know who did? People who DIDN’T respect the idea that land can be owned, and to live there you have to pay rent. Asshole conquerors came over to a land. They wanted that land and didn’t want to pay any rent to the people living there. They killed, and pillaged their way until they became owners because fuck rent. Yet you implicitly recognize their right to own that land and sell it to others because they sold it to someone who sold it to someone who sold it to someone who sold it to your parents. And you consider that legitimate. You object that this was something that happened before you or your parents were born, and thus we have to just deal with the reality of today. But that goes both ways. No one should be able to live the life of Riley and have people wait on them hand and foot and supply their every need when they don’t work for anything and never have worked for anything. And there certainly are families that directly passed inheritance down from conquering, pillaging, enslaving–and their descendants are still rich today as a direct consequence. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/493 "2013-08-12T20:36:32Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Yet you implicitly recognize their right to own that land and sell it to others because they sold it to someone who sold it to someone who sold it to someone who sold it to your parents. And you consider that legitimate. > > You object that this was something that happened before you or your parents were born, and thus we have to just deal with the reality of today. But that goes both ways. No one should be able to live the life of Riley and have people wait on them hand and foot and supply their every need when they don’t work for anything and never have worked for anything. And there certainly are families that directly passed inheritance down from conquering, pillaging, enslaving–and their descendants are still rich today as a direct consequence. I can’t believe we’re having THIS fucking conversation. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/494 "2013-08-12T20:39:16Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Yet you implicitly recognize their right to own that land and sell it to others because they sold it to someone who sold it to someone who sold it to someone who sold it to your parents. And you consider that legitimate. > > You object that this was something that happened before you or your parents were born, and thus we have to just deal with the reality of today. But that goes both ways. No one should be able to live the life of Riley and have people wait on them hand and foot and supply their every need when they don’t work for anything and never have worked for anything. And there certainly are families that directly passed inheritance down from conquering, pillaging, enslaving–and their descendants are still rich today as a direct consequence. Why would it go both ways? Time marches forward. What you’re proposing is that the possibilities of the past trump the realities of today. That the house that I live in right now has to be taken from me - to be redistributed for someone else’s ancestor’s crimes. That all transactions if traced back to a single misdeed are null and void. Like I said above - naive, selfish, and dumb. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/495 "2013-08-12T20:46:55Z")
You seem to misunderstand what I mean by “both ways”. You want the benefits of that conquering to be carried forth to you and your parents, but no negative consequences. Saying it’s water under the bridge, but it was still legitimately theirs to sell to people who sold to people who (etc. down the line) sold to your parents, is inconsistent in the extreme and mighty convenient for you. Why shouldn’t the descendants of the conquered have as much a claim as the descendants of the conquerors? Unless you explicitly recognize the right of conquest, which is what you seem to be doing even if you resist that claim. I am not saying, just to be clear, that we can or should dig back into time and sort all of this out plot by plot. What I am saying is that the entire concept of private land ownership should be scrapped. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/496 "2013-08-12T21:18:45Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > . . . “Inalienable rights” is too vague a term for me to say whether I believe in them or not. I do _prefer_ to protect the kinds of rights the ACLU fights for, but does that make them “inalienable”? Not so sure about that. I can’t believe in inalienable rights, because tyrannies, in the past, have actually alienated damn near every one on the list. “Rights” are simply interests, like any others, but which have enough defenders as to be difficult to be infringed upon. The intrinsic “right” to own a gun is the same in the U.S. today as it was in Japan in the 1600’s. Here, the right is actively defended. There…it wasn’t. “Inalienable” is a philosophical term, but has no practical meaning. It’s like the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” It was a declaration, but not in any way “universal.” > [@QuickSilver](#): > > I can’t believe we’re having THIS fucking conversation. :smack: Amazing, innit? (But…ah…which way, exactly, are you rejecting it? What’s your viewpoint here? No matter how obvious it may be, someone here is gonna disagree with it.) ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/497 "2013-08-12T21:23:38Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > You seem to misunderstand what I mean by “both ways”. You want the benefits of that conquering to be carried forth to you and your parents, but no negative consequences. Wait a second, what about an African American, or American Indian? Their ancestors obviously didn’t pillage the land from someone, so is your objection only towards white males? A trend I’ve noticed in a lot of your posts. I’m Canadian and my ancestors are Scottish, would it be okay if I owned land in the US and got rich? Who did my ancestors hurt? ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/498 "2013-08-12T21:38:25Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > You seem to misunderstand what I mean by “both ways”. You want the benefits of that conquering to be carried forth to you and your parents, but no negative consequences. Saying it’s water under the bridge, but it was still legitimately theirs to sell to people who sold to people who (etc. down the line) sold to your parents, is inconsistent in the extreme and mighty convenient for you. Why shouldn’t the descendants of the conquered have as much a claim as the descendants of the conquerors? Unless you explicitly recognize the right of conquest, which is what you seem to be doing even if you resist that claim. I’m neither a descendent of the conquered nor of the the conquerers. Neither are my parents. Neither are millions of people who currently own land in the US. Should our collective TRILLIONS of dollars invested in real estate be scrapped so you can assuage your white guilt? > [@](#): > > I am not saying, just to be clear, that we can or should dig back into time and sort all of this out plot by plot. What I am saying is that the entire concept of private land ownership should be scrapped. You want to scrap it, but not for any practical purposes as it pertains to the here and now though. It’s solely based on an argument founded on actions that happened hundreds of years ago. What I find objectionable is that for justice to be served to the few undeserving trust fund babies, you’re saying that it’s somehow more “fair” that the trillions of innocent homeowners have invested into their land needs to be wiped off the record. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/499 "2013-08-12T22:06:30Z")
It’s not only for justice or even primarily for justice. That was really more of an illustration that there is no reasonable way to ascribe private ownership to land. It is intrinsically a proposition just as bizarre and wrongheaded as owning sections of the atmosphere, except that we have become used to it. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283/500 "2013-08-12T22:22:01Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > It’s not only for justice or even primarily for justice. That was really more of an illustration that there is no reasonable way to ascribe private ownership to land. It is intrinsically a proposition just as bizarre and wrongheaded as owning sections of the atmosphere, except that we have become used to it. Why can’t we own sections of the atmosphere? I’d rather my neighbour didn’t build a cantilevered deck that extended over my backyard. You might also reconsider flying your light aircraft over the White House, or in proximity to a nuclear power plant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/profits-are-a-tax-on-labor/663283.md?page=26)