If the farmer’s paying rent, the “tax” is what he’s paying in rent.
It’s true that someone with only one skill would have a hard time on the island. (Though he’d still be better off than someone with no skills. At least he could fix a leg, if it got broken.)
The point, though, is that it’s the billionaire Galt who needs the workers. Without them he’s beggared, no matter how much money he has.
The workers - assuming for the moment they have other skills, besides just leg-fixing - would be just fine without the billionaire. If anything, he’s just one more mouth to feed.
This is by far the most intelectually dishonest utterance you’ve posted thust far. I’m not even going to try to convince you that you’re wrong. But you’ve got a great deal of work ahead of you if you’re going to convince anybody here that you’re not deliberately saying obtuse things just for your own amusement.
You asked if the rent you charged was the value of the service of providing land. The answer is: If there’s someone willing to pay it, yes. If nobody is willing to pay it, no. If you charged 100% of what someone has plus all their loved ones, then probably no. That is not the value of the service you provide. If you charged something like $12000 a month including utilities for a 1 BR apartment in a medium-sized city, then that would be closer to the true value. If I agree to paying that, I pay you. If I don’t agree, I would just go and live somewhere else.
Also, you can’t force me to stay as to pay you AND claim trespassing.
YOUR scenario is that renters pay an undisclosed amount - and you as the rent collector - pays half of your income towards taxes, so I have no idea where your numbers came from. Here’s how the real world operates as opposed to your scenario. Assuming I make $5,000 a month. My rent is $1000/month. My tax rate is 30%.
Real world:
+5,000 payment, -1000 rent, -1500 tax, keep 2500.
Your world:
+5000 payment, -1000 rent, no tax, keep $4000.
So yes. I would much prefer to live in your originally proposed world.
So nobody owns the land anymore and nobody has to pay rent?
Why can’t you understand the value of having some place to live? Why is it so hard for you to believe that in guaranteeing a place to live is in itself valuable. Without this, any jackass can go to your house/apartment and kick you out. Then when you ask why, he can say - “Well I’m a fireman. The work I do entitles me to a place to stay and this place suits me.”
That’d be a really shitty place to live.
You’ve argued yourself in a circle that you don’t even know what you believe in anymore. If rent is the tax, then a profitable farmer and a more profitable farmer pay exactly the same in “tax” regardless of labor - a direct contradiction of the OP.
Actually.
Holy shit.
Are you assuming that rent is calculated as a percentage of your income rather than a set amount? Have you so conflated taxes and rent in your mind that two started assuming each other’s properties?
Ok, sure. Most people rent because they’re too poor to buy. But that’s not always the case. Michael Jackson, supposedly, rented out a floor of a Las Vegas hotel, just because he felt like it. Howard Hughes did the same thing, if I remember right. Anyhow, if you don’t like that example: in order for some people to have maids, others have to be poor enough to be maids. For some people to have chauffeurs, others have to drive them around. For some people to have mansions, others have to spend many thousands of hours building and maintaining them. It doesn’t matter whether you like that particular example or not, the point’s the same: the lifestyle of rich people depends on the existence of the poor. Without poor people, and the more the better, the rich couldn’t afford to be rich.
I don’t see how it could be the “most” dishonest thing I’ve said since the beginning of the thread, since it’s exactly the same thing I’ve been saying since the beginning of the thread.
Rent = unearned income.
Unearned income = a “tax” on labor. Therefore:
Rent = a tax on labor.
The Soviets proved in the Forties and Fifties (winning WWII and the space race) that they could do lots without private ownership of land. Then Gorbachev added in the (I agree crucial) ingredient of civil liberties while waging peace; but his efforts were sadly cut short.
Yes. I saw this even more starkly in East Africa, where everyone I knew had servants up the wazoo. My family was the only Western one I knew to hire no servants (but at the same time, we didn’t have to feel the need to lock a gate at night between our bedrooms and the rest of the house to protect ourselves from them).
This is also something I wonder about when people like the Gates Foundation advocate for every American to go to college. And then pick up garbage or clean toilets?
Are you laboring under the misapprehension that repetition will cause this to become true?
Wages are a “tax” on management. Benefits are a “tax” on corporations. Pensions are a “tax” on owners.
This thread has been a tax on our patience.
Yep, just like how if I hire a lawyer or go to a doctor, they must be much poorer than me for that transaction to take place, right?
Insofar as you’re listening to anything anyone is saying, the reason why maids or whatever are poor is not because they provide a service, it is a question of supply and demand. Lots of people who have no marketable skills need food and shelter and accordingly that drives down salaries. Remember how you were ok with the market setting prices a minute ago?
If such labour was in short supply, then maids would be an expensive service, like doctors or whatever. There is no apriori reason it needs to be badly paid.
That’s pretty much our present system for liberal arts majors. I remember a movie where an acting teacher told his students that they would be waiting tables in order to act.
I may be wrong but I think the Gates Foundation believes that going to college opens doors. Perhaps what they really mean is bathroom stall doors.
And lord knows acting is a noble profession while waiting tables is for losers.
Really, do either one of you have the slightest idea how entitled you sound? Because from where I’m standing…
Go and live somewhere else?
Yes, you can go somewhere else. But you still have to pay when you get there. What do think? That somewhere else is free? You must pay rent wherever you go; therefore you must pay me when you get there. I’m not going to provide you with land for free.
You see, I own somewhere else. And I own here. And I own the places in between. You can live wherever you want, but wherever you go, you have to pay for it. And since I’m the owner, you get to pay me.
Who said anything about forcing you to stay? I just told you: can live wherever you want, so long as you pay me.
What do you think, that you should get to live somewhere for free?
No, not an undisclosed amount. The amount is 50%.
The amount of the rent is 50%, or $2500. And your landlord pays the taxes.
Or you can pay $0 rent (no landlord) and 25% taxes, or $1250.
You can of course, make up your own scenario. But you can’t make up your own scenario, and claim to be using mine. That would be silly.
No. They don’t have a landlord, because they own the land themselves.
I do understand the value of having a place to live. The value of having a place to live is equal to having a life. (How can you live a life, without having a place to live it?)
You’re the one who said the value of having a place to live (first paragraph) was less than everything you have.
As I said, having a place to live is infinitely valuable. That’s the difference between having a landlord, and not having one: a landlord can kick you out. That’s whole thing about being a landlord, is that you can evict people. If you didn’t have the power to evict people, you couldn’t get rent.
Rent can be a percentage, and a tax can be a set amount. They’re not properties of either.
Let’s try this from a different perspective. I go on a ski trip once a year, and when I do I rent skis and boots. Is that because I’m poor? No, I can easily afford a pair of skis, but I am much happier letting someone else deal with owning them, so I don’t have to store them, maintain them, and lug them around. I fly carry on, show up at the hill, and enjoy my day. The ability to rent skis is great, and I am happy that someone profits so that I don’t have to deal with owning skis.
I also go surfing a couple of times a year, and when I do I rent a board, which means the owner profits. Once again, not because I can’t afford a surf board, but because I have no desire to haul one around with me every time I travel.
Lastly, I go scuba diving a couple of times a year, and as you may have guessed I find a local to rent me gear, and a boat, that guy gets to profit because I don’t want to deal with owning scuba gear. But wait, I also hire that guy to drive me to a dive site, and show me around, maybe even provide a lunch.
It would seem that he’s rich because he owns, and I’m poor because I rent. But I hire him to do work for me, so he must be poor and I must be rich. How can that be? I am happy to pay to go scuba diving, and he is happy to be paid to take me. We both benefit, imagine that.
Now, let’s go back to the apartment building. The owner is providing a service by allowing people to rent an apartment. There are thousands of reasons why renting may be preferable to buying. So a renter benefits when someone provides a unit to be rented. No one is worse off, in fact both parties are actually better off. The owner gets a return on his investment, and the renter gets to avoid the hassle of ownership.
Did any of that make sense to you?
I agree that for anyone not intending to become a scholar (or not talented enough to do so), liberal arts degrees–especially from private schools–are kind of a racket. But there is still a difference between waiting tables and doing janitorial or sanitation work. The latter, along with eventually the former, will probably eventually become extinct as job categories when they are automated; but in the meantime, the system needs poor people without any other options to do them.
ETA: When the renting versus owning debates is framed in terms of people who need to rent something for the short or even medium term, whether it is for a day or for a year while in college, it can be beneficial for both parties. But what about something like sharecropping? Or like the situation of my friend’s mom who is a blue-collar diner waitress and has rented the same house for 40 years? I checked the rent to ownership ratios in their city, and it is one of those where the renter is at a clear disadvantage. Has the owner of that house really not gotten an unfair bargain out of her?
Stupidity.
I’m going to let you in on a little secret: when I bought my house a few years ago I didn’t have $190k, only $50k. So I went to the bank and rented the other $140k, by agreeing to pay 4% annually.
What I pay for my mortgage (aka rent for the cash) is less than what we paid in rent for an apartment, and to makes things even sweeter, the interest I pay is tax deductible. We saved the difference, and now could pay of the house, but our investments return more than 4%.
I also bought my house in 2008, so we plan to sell it in the fall for about $210,000. When we move we’ll most likely rent, not because we’re poor but because we’re smart.
I had lots of rich friends that bought houses/condos, in 2004-2007 while we were renting, that made us feel poor because we bought into the propaganda you’re selling. Those friends are a lot poorer now, if only they had continued to rent…
Of course profits are a tax on labor. Why is this hard to understand? So are taxes!
What’s offensive is when someone who makes his money collecting rents (really taxes) whines about having to pay taxes on his income.
I seem to remember something in the Gospels about that kind of thinking.
When I talk about rent as unearned income, I’m talking about net income, not gross.
So in your examples, the unearned income is the part that winds up as profit; not the gross rental fees from skis or boats or whatever.
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.
If you think I’m against people using money to exchange goods and services, you’re wrong, and I’m not sure where you got that idea.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And who owns the land where people work?
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. 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.
No, they’re not. So why do you insist on referring to rent exclusive as a percent?
And you refuse to acknowledge that those things they own come as a direct result of previous work.