Archive for the ‘quasi-rent’ Category
Monday 24 May 2010
There have been complaints that my attack on Ken Henry’s destructive resource rent tax was dishonest because “… you know that strictly speaking these are profits and not economic rents”. But my point is that there is no such thing as an economic rent and hence Henry’s rent tax can be logically extended to the profits of any enterprise. Moreover, I explained in detail why the doctrine of economic rent is utterly fallacious, a fact that most of Ricardo’s contemporaries readily exposed.
Monday 16 November 2009
The concept of economic rent is an absolutely dreadful fallacy that has been a permanent part of economic theory since John Stuart Mill published his Principles of Political Economy in 1848. Fortunately it has been largely ignored with respect to economic policy. Enter Treasury boss Ken Henry who in his wisdom has decided that a resource tax based on this long-refuted fallacy is an absolutely spiffing idea. According to this genius a tax on what most economists call economic rent could yield $20 billion to $25 billion over the next ten years. And guess what? It will be absolutely costless. Why? Because economic rent is an unnecessary surplus the taxation of which has no effect whatsoever on investment and output.
Monday 14 June 2010
A short time ago Gina Rinehart — Australia’s richest woman — helped lead a protest in Perth against Prime Minister Rudd’s destructive resource rent tax. The striking thing about this event is that no one who addressed the crowd, including Rinehart, indicated even a passing acquaintance with the true nature of the tax. If they had done so perhaps they would have realised that the reasoning upon which the tax is based is totally fallacious.