🔔 Why everything you know about tax is wrong, with special guest, Dominic Frisby

The tax upon land values is, therefore, the most just and equal of all taxes. It falls only upon those who receive from society a peculiar and valuable benefit, and upon them in proportion to the benefit they receive.

A parish church started to give out free food to poor people living in a particular area.

Demand to live in the area rises.

The main beneficiaries of this surge in community spending? Local landowners.

Their rents and hence the value of their land rise in response to the free bread.

And the effect on the poor?

Entirely neutral: they paid less for their food but more for their shelter.

Back in 1956, McDonald's employee Sonneborn saw the writing on the wall; fast food didn’t make enough profit to sustain their expansion plans.

Something had to be done. Investors were sought, and banks were tapped, but neither Kroc nor Sonneborn found anything landing in their favor.

Then Sonneborn figured it out; McDonald's would lease the whole site for each restaurant (including the land) from a land owner, rather than purchasing the parcel outright.

Then McDonald's would sublease it back to the franchisee, who would manage the restaurant.

McDonald's would eventually prove a consistent revenue stream and acquire a mortgage to purchase both the land and the building.

This strategy allowed Kroc to buy out the McDonald brothers in 1961 for $2.7 million, enough to pay each brother $1 million after taxes.

The only reason we sell 15 cent hamburgers is because they are the greatest provider of revenue from which our tenants can pay us rent - Harry Sonneborn

 Hello.

Welcome to the fraudulence of central banks.

‘There is no inflation’

Right.

No inflation for the little guy, but inflation for those with assets. 1/n pic.twitter.com/KnI0SarCcs— David Belle (@davidbelle_) June 12, 2019 

 We're launching our custom payments app for @Shopify! 🎉We're tapping into the largest #ecommerce platform in the world. The waiting list is open for new merchants who want to join.

Click to know more: https://t.co/D1wHVZqSnl pic.twitter.com/jXHranlWDm— Utrust (@UTRUST) February 18, 2021 

What happens if you’re not attractive in this new world? In a chapter titled “Legal Protection for the Ugly”, Hamermesh argues there could be a case for some kind of affirmative action – after all, unattractive people, like those from racial minorities, are being denied opportunities.

“Bad looks,” writes Hamermesh, “can generate an earnings disadvantage of perhaps $140,000 over a lifetime compared to the earnings of an average-looking worker.” And the ways in which an unattractive person is disadvantaged are similar to the ways others – black people, say – are disadvantaged.

He goes on: “The causes of mistreatment of the bad-looking, and their results – inferior outcomes in a large variety of areas – seem little different either qualitatively or quantitatively from the mistreatment of other groups.”

The ugly could demonstrate. They could sue. But will it ever happen? Can you imagine people wearing “Ugly Power” T-shirts? Would you? No, me neither.