Comments on: Bennet Lincoff’s Proposal Has a Familiar Stink http://mistypedurl.com/2010/01/bennet-lincoffs-proposal-has-a-familiar-stink/ | Digital Detritus from Michael Castello Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:18:43 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: SteelWolf http://mistypedurl.com/2010/01/bennet-lincoffs-proposal-has-a-familiar-stink/comment-page-1/#comment-483 SteelWolf Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:33:35 +0000 http://mistypedurl.com/2010/01/bennet-lincoffs-proposal-has-a-familiar-stink/#comment-483 It also bothers me that proposals like this one are based on the false idea that you shouldn’t sing someone else’s song. Does this really make sense to people? It's a shame what years of entitlement have led people to accept as true. It also bothers me that proposals like this one are based on the false idea that you shouldn’t sing someone else’s song. Does this really make sense to people? It’s a shame what years of entitlement have led people to accept as true.

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://mistypedurl.com/2010/01/bennet-lincoffs-proposal-has-a-familiar-stink/comment-page-1/#comment-480 Crosbie Fitch Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:20:09 +0000 http://mistypedurl.com/2010/01/bennet-lincoffs-proposal-has-a-familiar-stink/#comment-480 A very familiar stink. Most taxes are 'voluntary'. If you don't want to pay income tax you don't have to, you just have to ensure you either don't work at all, or if you're lucky, you'll be allowed to work, but only if you do so entirely non-commercially. It's the same with a communication tax. If you don't want to pay it, you just have to ensure you either don't communicate at all, or if you're lucky, you'll be allowed to communicate, but only if you do so entirely non-commercially. You have to wonder why these guys like Lincoff don't realise that by pretending the tax they propose isn't a tax they fall at the first hurdle in terms of winning people's trust. A license implies that you shouldn't sing someone else's song, but paying a fee makes it ok. A tax implies that while there's nothing wrong with singing someone else's song, because the singer and songwriter would otherwise have such a hard time getting paid for their work, the nation should all have a whip round and collect a fund to pay these poor people (depending upon how popular their songs are). A very familiar stink.

Most taxes are ‘voluntary’.

If you don’t want to pay income tax you don’t have to, you just have to ensure you either don’t work at all, or if you’re lucky, you’ll be allowed to work, but only if you do so entirely non-commercially.

It’s the same with a communication tax. If you don’t want to pay it, you just have to ensure you either don’t communicate at all, or if you’re lucky, you’ll be allowed to communicate, but only if you do so entirely non-commercially.

You have to wonder why these guys like Lincoff don’t realise that by pretending the tax they propose isn’t a tax they fall at the first hurdle in terms of winning people’s trust.

A license implies that you shouldn’t sing someone else’s song, but paying a fee makes it ok.

A tax implies that while there’s nothing wrong with singing someone else’s song, because the singer and songwriter would otherwise have such a hard time getting paid for their work, the nation should all have a whip round and collect a fund to pay these poor people (depending upon how popular their songs are).

]]>