Controversial Political Statements IV

[aggienaut]

   So this is the weekend that traditionally I chair at the CCCPMUN (Contra Costa County Model United Nations) Conference. Much as we know I love MUN, after some very serious debate I decided to go on the Seattle road trip this weekend with Rob Roy & co. For the first time in four years or so I didn't go the the CCCPMUN conference.
   This morning the Seattle road trip was cancelled at the last minute. Its too late now to go to the CCCPMUN conference. I promptly wept bitter tears of sadness. Not really but I instant messeges "blugh!!" to Kristy about a million times throughout the day.


Controvercial Political Statements IV - or more reasons Senator Birman will someday object to my confirmation as US Chief Justice
   So I'm all about the capitalist system as it is usually the most efficient way to organize the economy and through its round-about ways tends to be best for everyone. Monopolies, however, mangle the system at its roots by eliminating competition, which is rather the basis of the system. Whats worse, monopolies are a natural product of the capitalist system, as successful enterprises buy out or destroy their competitors. In this manner the capitalist system is self destructive. That is, unless monopolies are thwarted. This is currently done through anti-trust legislation. Admittedly I don't know the details of how this works but I think the government pwns a company when it gets too big. On any account, I think the prevention of monopolies should be built into the system.

   How do I propose to do this you ask? Progressive taxation for corporations. Like how personal income is taxed at a higher rate the more you make. "WTF?" you say? "How are you going to apply this to corporations?" you ask.
   Corporate income will be taxed at an increasingly higher rate based on their closeness to having a monopoly. When a company's sales reaches 50% of the total market in that field it will pay 100% income tax (ie half its profits). Yes this is super steep, but the point is I don't think any company should be anywhere near 50% of the market in any given field. At lower percentages of the market share corporations shall pay taxes at a lower percentage (not necessarily decreasing in a straight line. Actual numbers to be set by specially bred team of economic supergeniuses). The market share shall be calculated at both a national & county level, if possible.

   In this manner corporations shall retain the basic competitive motivations that drive capitalism while retaining an inherent interest in not expanding beyond a certain point.

   There will of course be exceptions for businesses in locations and industries where there are so few competitors anyway that the difference is not statistically significant¹.

   Anyway, thats the basic idea. Discuss.

¹Interestingly, the Cal Aggie seemed to have absolutely no conception of statistical significance when they recently published an article about how we're all going to die because the suicide rate at Davis doubled from 2 to 4 last year. I bet the statistics department collectively killed themselves after reading that one.

Comments

[shid.livejournal.com]

What if a corperation controls less than 50%, but holds royalties on the rest?

IE, say that Windows only held 40%, but Windows Based OS's owned by different companies- but liscensed to by Microsoft, consisted fo another 30%?

royalty

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I think royalties in a number of patent areas have gotten really out of hand. I suppose until we come up with a more specific solution to royalties, income from royalties will be included in profit used to calculate market share..

Re: royalty

[shid.livejournal.com]

But profit isn't used to calculate market share- noob.

if anything, they'd have a 40% market share- be taking say, 90 million in profits from direct sales, and then an additional 40 million in royalties...

Would the tax on 40% take that in?

Re: royalty

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Royalties aren't calculated into market share? Well they should be, and would be for this system.

Also, I have major beef with specifically patents held in agribusiness of types of seeds and crap like that.

Re: royalty

[shid.livejournal.com]

patents for the most part = teh gay.

[thiswallflower.livejournal.com]

fun fact: my insider (jason) at cccpmun tells me catharine sat and BROKE a chair.

I would have paid at least five dollars to see that.

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Thats what you get for missing out on the conference.

[kilkenny.livejournal.com]

your system sounds good to me.

i guess

i dunno

[pavel-lishin.livejournal.com]

I don't know enough about economics to really hold my ground here...

But let's say Doodle Co. is ridiculously successful the first year, drives out all the competition, sells a billion Widgets but then promptly goes out of business as it's paying out all of its income in taxes. Now there's absolutely zero competition again, as everyone's out of business.

I don't know where I'm going with this.

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

well I'd say if its able to rise up and drive everyone out in the course of a year its probably a case where the size of the industry to begin with was below the margin of statistical significance, and everything will just be taxed at some lower rate.

[zellie-bean.livejournal.com]

I was just thinking about you and MUN this weekend!! There was a group of drunken MUN people at the hotel (Doubletree) I stayed at in Philly on Sat night