4 ms·

> But most of that revenue goes to JKR, whereas most of the fishing revenue may end up in "working class" people's pockets. I am sure JKR has to pay taxes stil

> But most of that revenue goes to JKR, whereas most of the fishing revenue may end up in "working class" people's pockets. I am sure JKR has to pay taxes still, which goes back to the government.

throw0101c 2y ago
> I am sure JKR has to pay taxes still, which goes back to the government. Does JKR personally own the copyrights, or have they been sub-licensed to a corporation in (e.g.) Ireland?
- edm0nd 2y ago
  With the levels of money involved, highly likely its all wrapped in legal fuckery.
  - ForOldHack 2y ago
    https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-making-money-hogwarts-legacy-what-we-know-1777087 https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-making-money-hogwarts-le...
bunderbunder 2y ago
But still, the money that's going straight into working class people's pockets is probably better for the UK in the long run. Don't worry, it will get taxed over and over and over and over again as they pay each other for things. Velocity is one of those critically important concepts that often gets left out of these discussions because it's hard to understand if you haven't formally studied economics because it's all about second order effects. But it's a big part of understanding why, historically speaking, maximizing corporate profits doesn't seem to correlate all that well with overall prosperity trends.
- tim333 2y ago
  There are quite a lot of people who make money from Harry Potter apart from JKR. People running cinemas, bookshops, making the movies, running the studio tour and so on.
  - bunderbunder 2y ago
    Right. And the more of that that happens, the better for the economy overall. The less of that that happens - implying more of it ends up in JKR's proverbial dragon hoard, not doing much good beyond being an impressive pile of wealth for the dragon to sleep on top of - the less good for the economy overall.
    - ViktorRay 2y ago
      I don’t think your comment is accurate. When rich people get large amounts of money they don’t hoard it like they did in Roman times. That money either goes into the stock market or to a bank. If it’s in the stock market that money is being used in investments that further economic growth. The portion of the leftover money that’s in the bank is then lent out by the bank to others in the forms of loans and so on for purchasing houses, starting business and so on. The idea that the pile of wealth is simply hoarded to be slept on is out of date and not representative of modern economics. Also, as for JK Rowling specifically, she had donated a significant amount of her wealth to charity.
      - singleshot_ 2y ago
        My largest investment is my home. I’m not sure there’s any other way to think of my home as anything other than “a pile of wealth… to be slept on.” Am I missing something about modern economics?
        _carbyau_ 2y ago
        You are missing the wealth required to invest and put in the bank, such that your house is an afterthought.
        2y ago
raffraffraff 2y ago
And apparently she really does pay all her taxes (£47m last year, roughly $60m)

> But most of that revenue goes to JKR, whereas most of the fishing revenue may end up in "working class" people's pockets. I am sure JKR has to pay taxes still, which goes back to the government.

throw0101c 2y ago

> I am sure JKR has to pay taxes still, which goes back to the government. Does JKR personally own the copyrights, or have they been sub-licensed to a corporation in (e.g.) Ireland?

edm0nd 2y ago
With the levels of money involved, highly likely its all wrapped in legal fuckery.
- ForOldHack 2y ago
  https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-making-money-hogwarts-legacy-what-we-know-1777087 https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-making-money-hogwarts-le...

bunderbunder 2y ago

But still, the money that's going straight into working class people's pockets is probably better for the UK in the long run. Don't worry, it will get taxed over and over and over and over again as they pay each other for things. Velocity is one of those critically important concepts that often gets left out of these discussions because it's hard to understand if you haven't formally studied economics because it's all about second order effects. But it's a big part of understanding why, historically speaking, maximizing corporate profits doesn't seem to correlate all that well with overall prosperity trends.

tim333 2y ago
There are quite a lot of people who make money from Harry Potter apart from JKR. People running cinemas, bookshops, making the movies, running the studio tour and so on.
- bunderbunder 2y ago
  Right. And the more of that that happens, the better for the economy overall. The less of that that happens - implying more of it ends up in JKR's proverbial dragon hoard, not doing much good beyond being an impressive pile of wealth for the dragon to sleep on top of - the less good for the economy overall.
  - ViktorRay 2y ago
    I don’t think your comment is accurate. When rich people get large amounts of money they don’t hoard it like they did in Roman times. That money either goes into the stock market or to a bank. If it’s in the stock market that money is being used in investments that further economic growth. The portion of the leftover money that’s in the bank is then lent out by the bank to others in the forms of loans and so on for purchasing houses, starting business and so on. The idea that the pile of wealth is simply hoarded to be slept on is out of date and not representative of modern economics. Also, as for JK Rowling specifically, she had donated a significant amount of her wealth to charity.
    - singleshot_ 2y ago
      My largest investment is my home. I’m not sure there’s any other way to think of my home as anything other than “a pile of wealth… to be slept on.” Am I missing something about modern economics?
      - _carbyau_ 2y ago
        You are missing the wealth required to invest and put in the bank, such that your house is an afterthought.
      - 2y ago

raffraffraff 2y ago

And apparently she really does pay all her taxes (£47m last year, roughly $60m)