28 ms·
Exactly. And this is why all property must be taxed on a periodic basis. There should always be an incentive and pressure on asset holders to put their assets t
by fred_durst 12y ago
Exactly. And this is why all property must be taxed on a periodic basis. There should always be an incentive and pressure on asset holders to put their assets to work.
- Pxtl 12y agoWhat makes sense would be to tax based on its usage of a limited space. Land is exceptionally limited, especially in urban environments, so taxing its use makes sense. The space of inventions is also obviously limited, since it's often extremely challenging to work around a technical patent. But is music a limited space? Prose? Software? In those cases it seems like the benefits of a "property tax on copyright" would be minimal.
- dragonwriter 12y agoNote the "especially" part here: > Land is exceptionally limited, especially in urban environments Which basically emphasizes that while the space is limited inherently, the key part is that the subspace that is in particular demand at any given time (the place where people want it, and which is therefore as densely populated as it will support) is particularly limited. > But is music a limited space? Prose? Software? Even if the overall space of each isn't particularly limited, the subspace that is in demand at any given time is particularly limited. There wouldn't be value to copyrights on these things in the first place if that wasn't the case -- there would be no value in excluding people from the particular niche you develop if there were an infinite array of equally-easy-to-develop, equally-valuable niches within the same space available. The entire value proposition of copyright is the same limited-space proposition that you say makes taxation make sense.