Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being paid rent means ownership. The "work" of ownership includes:
Saving the capital in order to purchase rentable real estate
Accepting and navigating the risks inherent with property ownership
Assuming costs of maintenance and repairs, in terms of time, money and effort.
There is a low supply of people who can "own" to that degree, and there is a high demand for property to rent, since ownership is significantly more difficult.
All prices, be they in the form of wages, actual prices of goods, or whatever ALWAYS RESULT FROM SUPPLY & DEMAND. That is unless government exerts force to artificially move that price and continually applies the force, as the moment they stop, the immutable law takes over.
Volo, you could explain till your blue in the face but people with a poor man's mindset will never understand. Worse, they don't care to try to understand because the prevailing mindset is gov't is going to save them.
Rent seeking/extraction almost always requires the state to be sponsor and participant to some degree, and that is because their monopoly on force and violence allows them to operate outside the bounds of supply & demand, at least in an illusory capacity, and collect rent while providing no value add. The "chain across river" example says it all, just replace "feudal lord" with "state" and there you go. In the modern world, the only way the feudal lord's chain across the river and continues to extract rent is if a) the government keeps the chain there and b) uses it monopoly on force and violence to force everyone to go down that river rather than choosing an alternate route.
But the monopoly on force and violence doesn't so much circumvent supply & demand so much as it overpowers it with greater force during the period that force is generated and applied. Like the airplane engine and parabolic wing design. Neither one, nor both, actually circumvent or discard gravity, they simply act together to create an upward vector of force that is greater than the downward vector of force we call gravitational acceleration. Take away the engine, the wing, or both and gravity will quickly reestablish dominance. Same thing here.
Supply & demand are driven by immutable human nature. You can use force to subdue, suppress and oppose human nature, but the instant that force is no longer applied in greater amounts than that which it opposes, the natural force that was always there and never went away will reassert its dominance.
I figured keeping the marginal rate under 50% at the top still was low enough to incentivize work or production
When deciding how much to work, people consider not only the higher earnings from working more hours but also the resulting difference in after-tax income.
When workers’ earnings rise but their after-tax income rises less—because of increases in their income and payroll taxes or declines in their benefits from government programs—their incentive to work typically declines.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,646,508 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
When deciding how much to work, people consider not only the higher earnings from working more hours but also the resulting difference in after-tax income.
When workers’ earnings rise but their after-tax income rises less—because of increases in their income and payroll taxes or declines in their benefits from government programs—their incentive to work typically declines.
It hasn't with me, as the way marginal tax rates are set up, you still take home more the more you earn. I've seen that first hand and it's still been incentive enough for me, despite paying higher taxes the higher my income gets
And PS to Hoonose - you know that collecting rent from leasing owned property is "profit seeking", not rent seeking/extraction, right?
Profit made from the difference in cost and revenue is simple trade. Rents on leased real estate are not extractions, but are mutually agreeable trading of cash (rent) for a service (allowed to live/work inside owned space). Totally different than government sponsored extortion based on their monopoly on force and violence.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,646,508 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
And PS to Hoonose - you know that collecting rent from leasing owned property is "profit seeking", not rent seeking/extraction, right?
Profit made from the difference in cost and revenue is simple trade. Rents on leased real estate are not extractions, but are mutually agreeable trading of cash (rent) for a service (allowed to live/work inside owned space). Totally different than government sponsored extortion based on their monopoly on force and violence.
True rent seeking is destroying this economy (i.e. profiting off of exploiting an owned resource while putting nothing back into the economy)
Being paid rent means ownership. The "work" of ownership includes:
Saving the capital in order to purchase rentable real estate
Accepting and navigating the risks inherent with property ownership
Assuming costs of maintenance and repairs, in terms of time, money and effort.
There is a low supply of people who can "own" to that degree, and there is a high demand for property to rent, since ownership is significantly more difficult.
All prices, be they in the form of wages, actual prices of goods, or whatever ALWAYS RESULT FROM SUPPLY & DEMAND. That is unless government exerts force to artificially move that price and continually applies the force, as the moment they stop, the immutable law takes over.
I rented homes or apartments for most of my life. When I would give the landlords notice that I was moving out, and not renewing the lease, they would all beg my family to stay, because they'd say it's difficult to find good tenants.
Apparently, the vast majority of tenants don't pay their rent on time, trash the property, leaving it in a mess when they do move out, cause complaints with other tenants, and are generally a pain in the ass.
True rent seeking is destroying this economy (i.e. profiting off of exploiting an owned resource while putting nothing back into the economy)
That does not make much sense. How does using the property as a single family home, instead of as a rental property, make any different when it come to "putting money back into the economy?"
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,646,508 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
That does not make much sense. How does using the property as a single family home, instead of as a rental property, make any different when it come to "putting money back into the economy?"
Rent seeking doesn't just refer to property. One of the biggest areas it applies is to intellectually property, like copyrights
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
