Debates
12 Dec 07
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarra) silly
There are at least four ways to "treat people the same" regarding schemes of taxation. We could tax everyone the same dollar amount, we could tax everyone the same proportion of their income, we could tax everyone according to their ability to pay, we could tax everyone on the basis of their consumption of public services. Our commitment to liberty and egali ...[text shortened]... m is neutral between these schemes of taxation (at least until further premises are provided).
b) fair; Russia has it now, I believe.
c) unfair, oppressive, and common worldwide,
d) OK in theory, but leads to a lot of horse-trading. I don't have kids, why should I pay for schools? (Who will you hire to work in your business?) I don't drive -- don't need roads. (How does food get to your supermarket?) I don't care if my house burns down or the Canadians invade -- no fire dept or army. Etc.
I go for b) plus the Negative Income Tax.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by spruce112358You actually understand what this statement meant ?
The Amish probably give the Cubans a run for their money on that score.
Cuba's the only country in the world with an acceptable human development index that's consuming less than 1 earth's worth of resources per head.
Im impressed. Can you explain it to me like I was a 5 yr old ? Ok .... Im expecting the wisecracks.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by Rajk999I'm all ears too. I have no idea what an "acceptable human development index" is. I also don't understand how a single country could "consume 1 earth's worth of resources per head" much less all countries but one.
You actually understand what this statement meant ?
Cuba's the only country in the world with an acceptable human development index that's consuming less than 1 earth's worth of resources per head.
Im impressed. Can you explain it to me like I was a 5 yr old ? Ok .... Im expecting the wisecracks.
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by telerionWhat type of tax are you thinking about here?
Under this policy, in good times you encourage people not to save or work as much (because of higher taxes). So what should they do with they're higher income? Consume more of it. Then when bad times come lower taxes encourages them to consume less, work more and save more. In the end, you increase the volatility of consumption over the cycle. Generall ...[text shortened]... thing. People most often want to have a "smooth" consumption pattern with some upward trend.
I can certainly think of several possibilities where the distortions would go in the direction of stabilizing consumption.
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by PalynkaProportional taxes on capital and labor income. I did implicitly assume that preferences are such that the income effect is small relative to the substitution effect.
What type of tax are you thinking about here?
I can certainly think of several possibilities where the distortions would go in the direction of stabilizing consumption.
I suppose a consumption tax applied in the manner ATY suggests would smooth consumption. Did you have some others in mind?
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou call that "socialism" ? ... oh brother ......
Is it in the best interests of society to have an economic model that is dependent on performance? Specifically, when doing poorly, remove market restrictions and taxes, when doing well, add more of them. In other words - the better the economy is doing the more "socialist" programs we should have.
Agree or disagree?
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterHere we go ...... as if these communist dictatorships had Keynesian inspired capitalist free market economies .... oh, brother .....
Strongly disagree. One need look no further than Cuba, North Korea or the failed Soviet Union to see the effects of communism/socialism: poverty, famine, pestilence and death.
13 Dec 07
Originally posted by rwingettThere is nothing socialist about the New Deal.
This approach is ridiculous. When the economy is doing poorly is when you need the "socialist" programs the most. When the economy is doing well, presumably they would be needed less. Assuming that at least some of that prosperity is being spread around and isn't being hoarded by a rapacious elite. After all, when did the New Deal get launched? During the roaring 20s? No, it was during the depths of the depression.
14 Dec 07
Originally posted by Rajk999Ha! You got me. No, I didn't research it enough to understand it.
You actually understand what this statement meant ?
Cuba's the only country in the world with an acceptable human development index that's consuming less than 1 earth's worth of resources per head.
Im impressed. Can you explain it to me like I was a 5 yr old ? Ok .... Im expecting the wisecracks.
I assumed what it meant was that Cuba is semi-developed but has to use low-tech workarounds because of sanctions and prohibition of free-market forces (horses, etc.)
14 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMove to Europe if you want socialism.
Is it in the best interests of society to have an economic model that is dependent on performance? Specifically, when doing poorly, remove market restrictions and taxes, when doing well, add more of them. In other words - the better the economy is doing the more "socialist" programs we should have.
Agree or disagree?