This article is pretty substanceless, but especially since it references Bill Gates, got me thinking- why is no one calling for a tax on intellectual property? The article implies that a lack of income tax is regressive, but it seems that the value of the monopoly on IP accrues to a tiny slice of the populace.
The value of IP law for the consumer is in the work itself, which often would not exist but for the ability for its creator to profit from it.
Now as to taxing IP: property (wealth) just is not taxed right now, at least in the US and with the exception of land and/or buildings. There are reasons for and against that, and they pretty much apply to IP, too.
If some state decided to start taxing wealth, IP would be no exemption, although there are a few of specific difficulties with it. IP you created yourself is fiendishly difficult to evaluate, something that is easier if you just bought it, where the market-based price is assumed to be a good proxy for worth.
IP is a huge governmental tax on the general public that accrues to a small number of wealthy people. (Any governmentally-enforced monopoly would be the same.) Taxing it would effectively reduce that somewhat, but it's easier to simply reduce IP in the first place. Make copyright 5 years instead of infinite, for example. That has the dual benefit of bringing a lot of content into the public domain and also being similar in effect to a tax on IP. (Think of it, if you like, as a 0% tax on IP for the first five years followed by a 100% tax on IP.)
> why is no one calling for a tax on intellectual property?
This is an interesting idea that I haven't considered before. Do you know if anyone has looked into its feasibility?
