|Re: `||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: apguirard (apguirardmmm.com)|
|Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:45:45 CST|
Gordon Weil writes: > Andre G. writes, > > LETS sounds to me like a way of avoiding taxes.... > > It may be implemented for that reason, but another reason for LETS is that it > promotes a self-sustaining economy, develops local skills, > and prevents the loss of money from the community. I am just a pessimist; I see the down side to every positive point. If it promotes a self-sustaining economy, it also promotes insularity. If it develops local skills, that means the work is being done by people who are not as skilled as people you might pay to do it, and so it's probably not being done as well. If it prevents the loss of money from the community, it also prevents income to the community by diverting members' efforts from the activities they are more expert in (and therefore most productive at) and could sell outside the community, to activities they are not as expert in, and could not get anyone to pay money for. In short, as I see it, the value of LETS comes about from avoiding taxes, and possibly from having better information up front about the people who do the work. People talk about money as if it were a real thing, but actually money is just as much a product of the imagination as a LETS credit is; only a symbol of services and products owed. Therefore, it makes sense to treat LETS credits just like money; each person needs to establish for themselves a conversion ratio of LETS credits to currency, by figuring out how much they could make for the same services they are offering in LETS if they did them for money instead (after taxes). They should evaluate each LETS offering in that light; if they would not pay that same person the equivalent number of dollars to do the work, neither should they pay the LETS credits. Andre Guirard
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.